BV 

800 

.C738 


-2=*-2 — f.. 


# 


f  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,! 


#• 
«# 
* 
#» 


Princeton,  N.  J. 


©-e 


BV    800     .C738 

Crewdson,  Isaac,  1780-184 
Water  baptism  and  the  Lor 
Supper 


€> 


4. 
d's 


.*tv 


AIVD 

THE  LORD'S  SUPPER 


SCRIPTURAL  ARGUMENTS 

BEHALF  OF  THE  PERPETUAL  OBLIGATION 

OF  THESE 


^rtrt  nances 


BY  ISAAC  CREWDSON, 

OF  MANCHESTEK,  ENGLAND, 

ELISHA  BATES, 

OF   OHIO, 

And  a  few  Additional  Rentark% 
BY  IOTA. 


Search  the  Scriptures. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

WM.  STAVELY,  12  PEAR  STREET, 
1837. 


*»  Follow  Feacc  with  all  Men." 


TO  WM.  EVANS  AND  THOMAS  EVANS, 
Editors  of  Friends  Library, 

Bespected  Friends, 

It  is  I  trust  in  the  spirit  of  the  apostolic  injunc- 
tion which  I  have  selected  as  my  motto,  and  not 
with  any  disposition  to  provoke  angry  contro- 
versy or  excite  hostile  feeling,  that  I  have  ven- 
tured to  address  you  on  the  important  subject 
treated  in  the  accompanying  pamphlets.  Coming 
as  they  do  from  those  with  whom  you  have  long 
been  associated  as  members  of  the  Society  of 
Friends,  and  who  have  occupied  the  most  promi- 
nent stations  in  that  Society,  esteemed  in  your 
own  body  "  standard  bearers  of  the  truth,"  and 
among  other  denominations  looked  up  to  as  firm 
supporters  of  your  peculiar  views,  you  cannot 
refuse  to  weigh  well  the  arguments  by  which 
they  seek  to  justify  the  change  in  their  own  opi- 
nions on  a  subject  considered  by  your  Society  if 
not  fundamental,  at  least  of  great  importance. 
That  it  is  esteemed  of  vital  importance  among 
you  may  surely  be  fairly  deduced  from  the  asser- 
tion made  by  Josiah  Forster,  Samuel  Gurney,  and 
George  Stacy,  that  they  "consider  the  spiritual 
character  of  the  gospel  of  our  holy  Redeemer 
"  ^0  be  intimately  connected  with  the  disuse  of 
water  baptism."*  It  certainly  is  a  startling  cir- 
cumstance and  one  well  calculated  to  excite  an 

*  See  Ipttcr  to  E,  Eatcs, 


IV  REMARKS. 

anxious  investigation  of  the  soundness  of  your 
views,  that  the  author  of  a  work  still  referred  to  as 
a  standard  authority  among  you,  and  so  highly 
esteemed  as  to  have  run  through  no  less  than  four- 
teen editions  of  1000  copies  each,  within  the  short 
period  of  ten  years,  comes  forward  in  the  open  re- 
nunciation of  the  views  which  he  then  advocated, 
and  is  followed  in  this  step  not  by  the  young  and 
uninformed,  and  perhaps  unsettled  members  of 
your  Society,  but  by  those  who  have  been  most 
highly  esteemed  by  yourselves  for  the  soundness 
of  their  principles,  and  among  those  who  are  with- 
out the  pale  of  your  peculiar  denomination,  for  the 
purity  of  their  lives  and  the  integrity  of  their  cha- 
racters. When  upon  the  one  side  you  see  thou- 
sands of  those  who  have  professed  fellowship 
with  you  dropping  off  into  the  darkness  of  mysti- 
cism and  infidelity,  and  on  the  other  behold  those 
who  have  been  the  instruments  in  the  hand  of 
God  for  preventing  the  whole  body  of  the  Society 
rushing  into  the  same  destruction,  abandoning  the 
ground  they  then  occupied,  and  inviting  you  to 
the  examination  of  the  reasons  by  which  they 
have  been  induced  to  take  this  step,  it  certainly 
becomes  you  to  examine  well  the  foundation  on 
which  you  stand,  and  to  hear  patiently  and  weigh 
deliberately  the  arguments  they  address  to  you. 
In  reading  the  accompanying  pamphlets  it  has 
appeared  to  me  that  there  are  still  some  argu- 
ments left  untouched  by  their  authors  to  which  it 
may  not  be  amiss  to  invite  your  attention.  Far  be 
it  from  me  to  accuse  you  or  the  body  which  you 
represent  of  having  "  made  the  commandments  of 
God  of  none  effect  by  your  traditions,"  though  I 
do  believe  you  have  abandoned  a  plain  precept  of 


REMARKS.  V 

His  holy  word.  Equally  far  from  my  heart  is 
any  disposition  to  accuse  you  of  having  departed 
from  the  faith,  believing'  as  I  do  that  you  are 
building  on  the  alone  foundation  Christ  Jesus  ; 
but  while  I  thus  extend  to  you  the  hand  of  fellow- 
ship and  express  my  belief  that  you  are  members 
of  that  body  of  which  Christ  is  the  head,  I  cannot 
but  long  to  see  you  without  abandoning  one  of 
those  principles  by  which  you  are  actuated,  which 
have  their  authority  founded  on  the  written  word 
of  God,  yield  the  same  simple  obedience  of 
faith  to  those  institutions  of  the  Saviour  which  he 
established  as  the  outward  and  visible  signs  of 
that  inward  and  spiritual  grace  which  he  commu- 
nicates to  the  souls  of  those  who  trusting  in  his 
righteousness  and  atonement,  are  looking  for  sal- 
vation through  his  obedience  and  blood. 

Before  we  proceed  to  the  specific  argument  re- 
specting the  ordinance  of  baptism,  let  us  devote  a 
few  moments  to  the  consideration  of  the  ground 
on  which  the  claim  of  external  rites  to  continued 
observance  is  founded.  We  are  told  that  this  is 
a  spiritual  dispensation,  and  that  therefore  all  ex- 
ternal observance  which  have  a  tendency  to  divert 
the  mind  from  spiritual  things  are  contrary  to  its 
character.  It  is  certainly  granted  that  it  is  a  spi- 
ritual dispensation,  seeing  the  Lord  himself  hath 
assured  us  that  in  it  they  that  worship  the  Father 
must  worship  him  in  spirit  and  in  truth.  But 
while  it  is  true  that  it  is  the  heart  that  must  be 
changed,  and  the  affections  that  must  be  elevated, 
and  the  spirit  that  must  be  purified,  still  there  is 
connected  with  this  very  work  something  of  an 
outward  character.  Was  it  not  by  the  outward 
and  perfect  obedience  of  Jesus  to  the  whole  law 


VI  RKMARKS. 

of  God  that  he  became  "  the  liOrd  our  righteous- 
ness ?"  And  was  it  not  by  the  outward  offering 
of  his  body  on  the  cross,  and  the  pouring  out  of 
his  most  precious  blood  that  he  made  atonement 
for  our  sins  and  opened  for  us  the  gate  of  ever- 
lasting life  ?  Now  as  this  righteousness  wrought 
without  us  is  to  be  the  clothing  with  which  we 
are  to  appear  before  God,  and  this  atonement 
without  us  is  to  be  the  ground  of  our  acceptance 
with  God,  the  dispensation  cannot  be  said  to  be  so 
strictly  spiritual  as  to  exclude  every  outward  act. 
This  outward  work  in  our  behalf  is  admitted  by 
all  those  who  believe  the  testimony  which  God 
hath  given  of  his  Son  to  be  the  Foundation  on 
•which  rests  our  hope  of  glory.  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth thus  "  made  sin  for  us  who  knew  no  sin  that 
we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in 
him,"  received  into  the  heart  by  faith,  becomes  a 
source  of  holiness,  and  the  spirit  which  he  bestows 
on  those  who  thus  receive  him  carries  on  the  work 
of  sanctification,  *' purifying  the  heart,"  and  causr 
ing  the  believer  to  increase  in  meetness  for  the 
inheritance  of  the  saints  in  liglit.  But  while  the 
first  step  in  the  Christian  course  is  the  acceptance 
of  the  offer  of  salvation  through  a  Redeemer 
making  atonement  for  sin  with  his  own  blood, 
and  the  last  act  of  the  Christian  life  is  still  "  look- 
ing to  Jesus  as  the  finisher  as  well  as  the  author 
of  faith,"  the  omega  as  v/ell  as  the  alpha  of  our 
confidence  toward  God,  there  is  an  evident  fitness 
in  the  appointment  of  some  institutions  which 
shall  call  to  our  remembrance  the  blessings  which 
flow  to  us  from  these  acts  performedybr  i(s  and 
tvithout  us.  The  necessity  of  some  such  instir 
tution  will  become  more  evident  when  we  lake 


REMARKS.  Vll 

Into  consideration  the  natural  tendency  of  the 
heart  to  trust  in  its  own  righteousness,  whether 
inherent  or  wrought  by  the  instrumentality  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  the  ground  of  its  acceptance  with 
God.  Thus  then  baptism  becomes  on  the  part 
of  man  a  testimony  of  trust  or  belief  in  an  out- 
ward Saviour,  and  the  partaking  of  the  consecrat- 
ed symbols  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  keeps 
lis  continually  in  remembrance  of  the  exceeding 
great  love  of  our  Saviour  Christ  in  dying  for  us, 
and  of  the  great  and  endless  benefits  v/hicTi  by  his 
precious  bloodshedding  he  hath  procured  for  us. 
Thus  much  as  to  the  design  of  the  ordinances  of 
the  gospel  and  their  fitness  to  fulfil  that  design, 
iiot  that  this  is  all  that  could  be  said,  for  I  fear  to 
allow  myself  to  dwell  on  this  part  of  the  subject 
so  widely  does  it  open  before  me. 

But  my  specific  object  in  addressing  you  is  to  so- 
licit your  attention  to  two  points.  I  am  willling  to 
grant  (for  the  sake  of  argument,  not  in  fact)  that  the 
fundamental  principle  of  Quakerism,  as  distin- 
guished from  other  denominations  of  professing 
Christians,  is  correct,  and  that  the  promise  of  the 
Saviour  to  bestow  upon  his  followers  the  spirit  of 
truth  by  which  they  were  to  be  led  into  all  truth, 
is  susceptible  of  the  construction  you  put  upon  it, 
and  that  in  consequence  of  this  gift  every  Chris- 
tian has  within  him  something,  which  if  he  gives 
heed  to  its  teachings  will  lead  him  with  certainty 
to  the  knowledge  of  what  the  Lord  requires  of 
him.  I  presume  that  in  thus  stating  your  views 
of  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  I  am  keeping  ivithin 
the  limits  you  would  assign  to  it.  Now  grant- 
ing this  to  be  the  case,  I  would  ask  to  whom  could 
this  promised  teacher  be  more  necessary  than  to 


VI 11  REMARKS. 

those  to  whom  was  confided  the  important  duty  of 
kyingthe  foundations  of  that  Church  against  which 
the  Gates  of  Hell  are  not  to  prevail  ?  To  whom 
are  we  to  expect  it  would  be  conveyed  in  larger 
measure  than  it  was  to  those  who  had  followed 
the  Lord  in  the  regeneration,  and  had  partaken 
with  him  of  his  sorrows  and  griefs  ?  How 
could  it  be  consonant  with  the  wisdom  of  Him 
who  is  declared  to  be  all-wise,  to  permit  those 
whom  he  had  selected  to  occupy  the  most  promi- 
nent stations  in  his  kingdom  upon  earth  not  only 
to  fall  into  error  themselves  on  subjects  so  impor- 
tant, but  to  lay  upon  others  obligations  by  which 
he  never  intended  they  should  be  bound  ?  Yet, 
if  the  ground  assumed  by  high  authority  among 
you,  that  "  spiritual  religion  is  intimately  connect- 
ed with  the  disuse  of  water  baptism,"  be  correct, 
the  apostles  and  early  disciples  of  our  Lord  were 
so  far  from  finding  the  Spirit  to  lead  them  into  '*  all 
iruth,^^  as  the  Lord  had  promised  it  should,  that 
they  rested  on  forms  which  were  adverse  to  the 
genius  of  that  dispensation  which  demands  of  its 
disciples  that  they  should  worship  in  spirit  and  in 
truth.  Is  not  this  assumption  fatal  to  the  whole 
system  of  revealed  truth  ?  If  they  to  whom  the 
Spirit  was  given,  certainly  in  as  large  measure  as 
to  any  members  of  the  Christian  Church  in  the 
present  day,  were  so  blinded  by  "  prejudice"  that 
they  could  not  follow  its  guidings,  what  warrant 
have  we  that  we  shall  not  ourselves  be  left  in 
greater  ignorance  and  darkness  than  they  ?  If  they 
were  in  error  when  they  baptized  with  water  those 
who  professed  to  believe  in  Jesus  as  their  Saviour, 
how  are  we  to  know  that  they  were  not  equally 
in  error  when  they  asserted  that  Saviour  to  be  the 


REMARKS.  IX 

*'  Son  of  God,"  "  who  having  tasted  death  for 
every  man,"  is  "now  exalted  as  a  Prince  and  a 
Saviour,  to  give  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  ?" 
In  short,  if  they  were  not  so  guided  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  that  all  they  taught  to  be  of  divine  authori- 
ty is  obligatory  on  the  Church,  and  all  they  de- 
clared to  be  divine  truth  has  the  sanction  of  the 
Head  of  the  Church,  then  is  there  such  confusion 
and  disorder  in  the  Christian  system  that  it  loses 
all  its  obligation  on  reasonable  men. 

But  fatal  as  such  a  position  would  be  to  divine 
revelation,  let  us  again  suppose  it  true  ;  let  it  be 
admitted  that  in  the  abrogating  all  rites  and  cere- 
monies which  had  been  instituted  to  foreshadow 
a  Saviour,  when  that  Saviour  had  come  and  ful- 
filled all  which  these  types  and  shadows  had  pre- 
figured it  did  not  accord  with  divine  wisdom  to  es- 
tablish other  ordinances  which,  as  those  which  pre- 
ceded and  pointed  the  eye  of  faith  to  ^promised  bless- 
ing should  now  keep  alive  in  the  believer's  heart  the 
memory  of  what  had  been  accomplished.  Let 
it  be  admitted  (as  before,  for  the  convenience  of  ar- 
gument, not  in  fact)  that  it  was  the  design  of  our 
Lord  to  establish  a  purely  spiritual  dispensation 
without  outward  symbol  or  sign,  and  that  the 
Apostles  in  blessing  the  cup  and  breaking  the 
bread,*  as  well  as  in  administering  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism with  water,  were  acting  in  conformity  with 

"*  St.  Paul  says,  1  Corinthians,  x.  16.  «  The  cup  of 
blessing  which  WE  bless,  is  it  not  the  Communion  of  the 
blood  of  Christ  1  the  bread  which  WE  break,  is  it  not  the 
Communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  V  How  could  he  more 
emphatically  declare  his  continued  adherence  to  this  out- 
ward  ordinance  P 

2 


X  REMARKS. 

carnal  prejudices.  Then  let  it  be  remembered  that 
those  disciples  who  had  followed  him  in  his 
wanderings,  and  partaken  largely  of  his  in- 
structions, those  disciples  who  had  left  all  to  fol- 
low him,  to  whom  the  immediate  promise  of  the 
Comforter  had  been  made,  upon  whom,  after  his 
resurrection,  he  had  breathed,  saying  "  receive  ye 
the  Holy  Ghost ;"  with  whom  he  had  conversed 
*'  during/or/?/  days  concerning  the  things  which 
belong  to  the  kingdom  of  Godf^  upon  whom  the 
Holy  Ghost  had  descended  giving  them  that  power 
from  on  high  with  which  they  were  to  be  endued 
as  the  qualification  for  teaching  all  nations,  that 
Apostle  whom  the  Lord  had  miraculously  convert- 
ed for  the  express  purpose  of  sending  him  to  the 
Gentiles,  and  who  declares  that  the  gospel  preach- 
ed by  him  was  '^not  after  unan^^''  seeing  he  nei- 
ther "  received  it  q/*  ?/i«?i,  neither  was  it  taught  but 
by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,^^  that  Apostle 
who  "  was  caught  up  to  the  third  heaven  and  heard 
unspeakable  words  which  it  is  not  lawful  for  man 
to  utter,"  these  men  so  wonderfully  prepar- 
ed to  receive  the  truth,  and  so  miraculously  quali- 
fied to  promulgate  it  still  remained  in  the  bonds  of 
prejudice,  and  M'ere  permitted  to  fasten  the  same 
bonds  on  all  succeeding  generations  of  men,  (bonds 
be  it  remembered  which  are  adverse  to  the  exist- 
ence of  spiidtual  religion,)  and  it  is  reserved  for 
an  individual  sixteen  centuries  afterward  to  shake 
off  the  shackles  of  the  same  prejudice  and  eman- 
cipate his  own  mind,  and  those  of  a  small  portion 
of  the  Christian  Church,  while  the  remainder  are 
left  in  darkness  to  this  day.  Was  then  this  indivi- 
dual more  holy  than  the  Apostles  of  Christ  ?  Had 
be  larger  measures  of  the  »Spirit  of  Christ  ?  Did  he 


REMARKS.  XI 

yield  more  implicit  obedience  to  tlie  teachings  of 
this  Spirit  ?  Or  were  the  bonds  of  prejudice  less 
firmly  fixed  on  his  soul  tlian  on  theirs  ?  (for  it 
must  not  be  forgotten  that  George  Fox  himself 
had  been  educated  in  dependance  on  forms  and 
ceremonies  and  accustomed  to  their  observance.) 
You  certainly  will  not  claim  for  him  the  affirma- 
tive of  either  of  these  propositions.  Yet  do  you 
not  virtually  do  so  when  you  permit  the  authority 
of  his  opinions  and  example  to  weigh  more  with 
you  than  the  opinions  and  example  of  the  Apos- 
tles of  our  Lord,  as  recorded  in  the  book  of  Acts  i 
Either  you  must  prove  that  the  Spirit  promised  to 
guide  unto  all  Truth  was  not  bestowed  on  the 
Apostles,  or  that  they  did  not  baptize  with  water  and 
command  others  to  do  the  same — or  else  you  must 
claim  for  George  Fox  a  superior  degree  of  inspi- 
paration  or  greater  obedience  to  the  teachings  of 
this  Spirit.  Plainly  as  these  results  flow  from  the 
principles  which  are  avowed  by  the  Society  of 
Friends  I  am  sure  you  are  not  prepared  to  adopt 
either  alternative. 

I  am  next  to  consider  an  argument  which  from 
the  days  of  Barclay  down  to  the  present  time  has 
been  esteemed  of  great  weight  in  this  controversy, 
and  which  is  urged  as  evidence  that  the  Apostle 
Paul  abandoned  the  use  of  water  baptism.  If 
this  fact  could  be  proven,  then  I  admit  all  my 
previous  reasoning  would  be  of  no  value.  But 
little  need  be  said  to  convince  you  how  utterly 
untenable  is  such  an  assumption.  The  following 
text  is  commonly  adduced  as  evidence  of  the  fact : 
*'  I  thank  God  that  I  baptized  none  of  you,  but 
Crispus  and  Gains,"  ****.  "  And  I  baptized  also 
the  household  of  Stephanus,  besides  I  know  not 


Xll  REMARKS. 

whether  I  baptized  any  other."  Now  I  would 
ask  by  what  argument  do  you  prove  that  the  word 
*^  baptize'''  here  means  " /o  wash  with  water?'''' 
And  by  whatever  argument  you  prove  this,  by 
the  same  will  I  prove  that  the  same  word  in  the 
commission  given  by  our  Lord  to  his  apostles, 
"  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel 
to  every  creature,  he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved,  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned,"  must  mean  the  same  thing.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  context  to  limit  it  in  either  case. 
And  again  I  would  ask  your  attention  to  the  fact 
that  while  St.  Paul  thanks  God  that  he  baptized 
none  but  those  w^hom  he  names,  *'  lest  any  should 
say  that  he  had  baptized  in  his  own  name" — he 
addresses  them  all  as  those  who  had  been  bap- 
tized :  "  Were  ye  baptized  in  the  name  of  Paul  ?" 
The  argument  of  the  apostle  is  so  simple  that  it 
is  astonishing  how  it  can  be  perverted  to  mean 
any  thing  but  that  which  he  clearly  intended  it 
should.  He  commences  by  informing  the  Corin- 
thians that  it  had  been  declared  to  him  that  there 
were  divisions  among  them,  one  saying  I  am  of 
Paul,  another  I  of  Cephas,  and  a  third  I  of  Christ. 
He  then  asks  is  Christ  divided,  was  Paul  cruci- 
fied for  you,  or  were  you  baptized  in  the  name  of 
Paul.  (If  Paul  was  not  crucified  for  you,  and  ye 
were  not  baptized  in  the  name  of  Paul,  why  then 
call  yourselves  by  his  name.)  He  then  declares 
his  thankfulness  that  he  had  not  given  even  that 
shadow  of  excuse  for  thus  designating  themselves, 
which  might  have  been  found  had  he  personally 
admitted  them  within  tlie  pale  of  the  church  by 
the  initiatory  rite  of  baptism.  Any  other  use  of 
the  passage  can  only  be  effected  by  such  arbitrary 


REMARKS.  XHl 

siraining  of  language  as  would  not  be  allowed  to 
influence  you  in  other  cases.     The  fact  that  he 
had  not  personally  baptized  them  (that  they  were 
baptized  he  has  before  asserted)  and  the  remark 
that  Christ  sent  him  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach 
the  gospel,  is  sufficiently  explained  by  the  history 
of  the  baptism  of  Cornelius  and  his  household, 
which  Peter  "commanded"  should  be  done.    An 
equally  imauthorized  construction  is  put  upon  the 
parallel  passage  in  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians,   where   among  other  inducemenls  for  the 
maintenaujce  of  the  "  unity  of  the  Spirit  iu  the  bond 
of  peace,"  he  speaks  of  "  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one 
buptismy    If  as  is  asserted  by  those  who  oppose 
the  use  of  the  external  rite  of  baptism  with  water, 
the  apostle  here  intended  to  affirm  that  there  is 
but  one  A;mf/ of  baptism  recognized  Sy  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation,  he  pal])ably  contradicts  those 
passages  of  the  word  of  God  in  which  are  men- 
tioned the  baptism  of  suffering — the  baptism  of 
lire — the    baptism  of  the    Holy    Ghost,    not  to 
mention  the   simple  type  from  wluch  all  these 
figures  are  drawn.     The  apostle,  however,  is  not 
guilty  of  this  contradiction,  if  we  allow  the  whole 
scope  of  the  passage  to  give  the  key  to  the  use  of 
the  word.  In  truth  the  construction  you  put  upon 
it  would  take  this  single  member  of  the  sentence 
out  of  its  just  and  natural  relation,  destroy  entirely 
the  connexion  of  the  several  parts,  and  weaken  a 
beautiful  and  forcible  argument  in  behalf  of  that 
love  which  is  the  badge  of  our  discipleship. 

During  the  preparation  of  these  few  remarks 
for  the  press,  an  article  has  met  my  eye  in  the 
pages  of  the  Friend  in  which  the  disuse  of  baptism 
is  supported  on  the  authority  of  the  assembly  of 


XIV  REMARKS. 

the  apostles  and  elders  and  brethren  which  was 
held  at  Jerusalem  on  the  question  brought  before 
them  by  Paul  and  Barnabas,  respecting  the  cir- 
cumcision of  Gentile  converts.  To  this  it  is  only 
necessary  to  reply  that  the  question  of  baptism 
did  not  come  before  them,  and  this  very  silence 
shows  the  undoubted  authority  of  the  rite,  seeing 
it  was  never  called  in  question.  The  very  next 
chapter,  however,  affords  a  more  distinct  and  un- 
questionable refutation  of  the  whole  argument. 
For  we  there  read  that  while  Paul  and  Silas  were 
passing  round  the  churches  and  delivering  "  the 
decrees  for  to  keep  that  were  ordained  of  the 
apostles  and  elders  at  Jerusalem,"  they  baptized 
Lydia  and  her  household,  and  the  jailor  at  Philippi, 
and  "  all  his."  I  am  aware  that  an  objection 
may  here  be  started  that  in  the  same  chapter  we 
have  recorded  the  circumcision  of  Timothy.  For 
this,  however,  the  evangelist  thinks  it  necessary 
to  account,  while  the  other  he  passes  by  without 
any  apology,  merely  recording  the  facts.  Timo- 
thy being  the  son  of  a  Jewess,  he  was  not  subject 
to  the  decree  of  the  apostles  and  elders  which  had 
reference  only  to  Gentile  converts. 

A  few  words  more  and  I  shall  then  submit  the 
whole  matter  to  your  calm  and  prayerful  conside- 
ration. When  we  urge  upon  you  the  propriety 
(may  I  not  say  necessity)  of  simple  obedience  to 
the  plain  commmandments  of  the  Lord,  and  the 
advantage  of  following  the  Apostles  as  they  fol- 
loived  Christ,"  we  are  constantly  reminded  that 
this  is  a  spiritual  dispensation,  as  though  there 
was  something  in  the  observance  of  these  institu- 
tions which  was  hostile  to  spiritual  feeling.  Did 
the  Apostles  find  it  so  ?  are  we  to  be  more  spiritual 


REMARKS.  XV 

than  they  ?  cannot  the  assurance  of  those  who  par- 
ticipate in  the  benefit  be  received,  that  they  do  not 
hinder  spirituality,  but  rather  increase  it  ?  If  the 
ordinances  of  religion  were  unmeaning  obser- 
vances, then  might  such  an  objection  lie  against 
them,  then  should  I  be  the  last  to  urge  their  obser- 
vance upon  any  one  ;  but  they  are  not  so : 
on  the  contrary  they  are  full  of  meaning.  Nay, 
I  am  ready  to  assert  my  conviction  that  they  are 
essential  to  the  Church,  for  the  very  purpose  for 
which  one  of  them  was  expressly  instituted — "  to 
show  forth  the  Lord's  death  until  he  come."  I  do 
not  assert  them  to  be  essential  to  salvation,  as 
we  are  often  falsely  accused  of  asserting ;  to  this 
but  one  thing  is  essential — "  Believe  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved."  But  they 
are  essential  as  the  means  by  which  the  knowledge 
of  the  facts  of  our  Lord's  incarnation  and  suffer- 
ing is  to  be  maintained,  and  the  arguments  of  op- 
posers  refuted,  and  if  not  essential  certainly  high- 
ly important  means  of  keeping  alive  in  the  heart 
of  the  individual  believer  the  simple  trust  in  the 
merits  and  sufferings  of  Jesus  whereby  alone  we 
obtain  remission  of  our  sins  and  are  made  parta- 
kers of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven.  If  half  ihe  in- 
genuity and  argument  which  are  necessary  for  the 
support  of  your  peculiar  views  were  needful  on 
our  side,  I  for  one  would  abandon  the  views  I  now 
uphold  ;  but  with  the  simple  letter  of  the  command 
in  our  behalf,  and  the  undeniable  and  undenied 
practice  of  the  apostles  to  support  this  simple  con- 
struction, we  should  be  abandoning  ground  on 
which  the  whole  fabric  of  Christianity  rests  were 
we  to  coincide  with  you. 

As  I  have  before  said,  I  am  far  from  the  disposi- 


XVI  REMARKS. 

tion  to  assert,  as  regards  any  individual,  that  he 
has  departed  from  the  faith  and  made  void  the 
foundations  of  the  Gospel,  but  I  do  fearlessly  as- 
sert that  the  tendency  of  the  principles  which  are 
held  by  the  followers  of  Fox  and  Barclay  is  to  de- 
solate that  Church  which  the  Redeemer  hath  pur- 
chased with  his  own  blood.*  In  inviting  you  to 
examine  again  the  reasons  on  which  we  support 
our  conformity  to  what  we  believe  an  imperative 
commandment  of  the  Lord,  we  do  not  ask  you 
to  abandon  one  tittle  of  "  spirituality  ;'^  rather  we 
would  say  to  you  "  grow  in  grace  and  in  the  know- 
ledge of  the  Lord  ;"  we  do  not  ask  you  to  con- 
form to  the  world ;  we  rather  say  come  still  more 
out  from  them  and  be  separate.  We  do  not  ask 
you  to  renounce  the  belief  in  the  influence  on  the 
Holy  Ghost;  we  only  ask  you  to  believe  that  it  in- 
fluenced Apostles  and  Prophets  when  they  laid 
the  foundation  of  the  Church,  Jesus  Christ  him- 
self being  the  chief  corner  stone  ; — Ep.  xi.  chap., 

*  Let  me  reiterate  the  assurance  of  my  desiro  that  no- 
thing here  said  may  be  supposed  to  have  any  personal  ap- 
plication. It  is  to  me  a  source  of  much  satisfaction  to  he 
able  to  believe  that  notwithstanding  the  natural  tenden- 
cy of  the  princifjle  to  which  I  allude,  there  are  among  you 
many  who  hold  the  simple  truths  of  the  gospel  of  Jesue 
Christ,  and  on  whom  those  truths  produce  their  natural 
result  in  great  holiness  and  pureness  of  living.  Yet  there 
is  evidence  too  palpably  plain  to  be  misunderstood,  that 
the  tendency  of  the  doctrines  which  distingnish  your  So- 
ciety from  other  Christians  is  evil.  I  speak  of  the  dis- 
tinctive doctrines  of  your  Society — because  I  am  firmly 
convinced  that  those  which  are  scriptural  are  held  in  com- 
mon with  other  sects  of  Christians,  and  wherever  they 
are  practically  held,  must  produce  fruit  unto  holiness,  as 
they  do  with  you. 


REMARKS.  XVll 

20  verse.  We  beg  you  to  "  recur  to  first  princi- 
ples," not,  as  you  too  often  apply  it,  to  Fox  and 
Penn,  and  Barclay,  but  to  Peter,  Paul  and  John ; 
let  them  decide  what  was  the  intention  of  their 
Master  and  Lord,  and  follow  them  in  the  path 
which  they  trod.  We  do  not  invite  you  to  adopt 
any  human  scheme  of  doctrine  or  discipline,  but 
we  entreat  you  to  lay  aside  the  prejudice  of  edu- 
cation, and  examine  for  yourselves,  "  searching 
the  Scriptures  whether  these  things  are  so"  with 
earnest  prayer  that  the  Holy  Ghost  will  enlighten 
your  understandings  to  receive  what  these  Scrip- 
tures certify  of  Jesus.  A  crowd  of  arguments  in 
behalf  of  these  views  present  themselves  to  my 
mind,  but  I  am  anxious  not  to  obscure  so  plain 
and  simple  truths  by  a  multitude  of  words.  I  hold 
myself  in  readiness  to  examine  carefully  anything 
you  have  to  adduce  in  support  of  the  views  held 
by  your  Society,  and  also  to  abandon  my  present 
convictions  should  you  be  able  to  overcome  them 
by  reasonable  arguments  founded  on  Scriptural 
truth. 

It  may  be  proper  to  apologize  for  addressing 
these  remarks  to  you  as  individuals  while  I  main- 
tain for  myself  the  privacy  of  an  assumed  signa-^ 
ture.  Nothing  could  be  gained  by  the  knowledge 
of  my  person,  either  to  the  cause  or  by  myself, 
while  you  have  assumed  personal  responsibility 
forthese  doctrines  by  appearing  before  the  public  as 
the  editors  of  a  Friends  Library,  intended  to  dis- 
seminate your  peculiar  views. 

Allow  me  again  to  assure  you  of  warm  per- 
sonal esteem  and  earnest  desire  that  you  may  be 


xviii  remarks; 

rooted  and  grounded  in  the  faith  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  that  so  when  he  shall  appear  you  may  be 
ready  to  meet  him  with  joy. 

IOTA. 


WATER    BAPTISM 

AN 

ORDINANCE    OF    CHRIST 


AN  ADDRESS  TO  THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS. 


BY  ISAAC  CREWDSON. 


WATER    BAPTISM 


ORDINANCE  OF  CHRIST. 


to  the  society  of  friends. 

My  dear  Friends, 

Though  the  connexion  which  I  have  had 
from  my  birth  with  the  Society  of  Friends  is 
now  dissolved,  this  separation  has  not  destroy- 
ed the  interest  which  I  have  long  felt  in  your 
welfare.  Sincerely  should  I  rejoice  that  you 
should  be  established  in  the  truth  of  Christi- 
anity, and  heartily  receive  the  whole  Gospel, 
as  it  is  set  forth  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  where 
alone  we  must  look  for  the  doctrines  that  we 
are  bound  to  receive,  and  the  precepts  that 
we  are  required  to  obey. 

I  am  convinced  that  some  views  of  religion 
have  been  inculcated  in  the  Society,  whi^h 
are  not  taught  in  Holy  Scripture ;  and  that 
the  adoption  of  certain  principles  not  found 
therein,  has  led  to  the  inevitable  perversion 
of  some  of  the  doctrines  and  practices  of  Chris- 
tianity.    Perhaps  nothing  has  tended  more  to 


4  WATER  BAPTISM 

these  errors,  than  the  views  propagated  on 
the  suhject  of  immediate  revelation.  The 
admission  of  this  opinion,  led  the  early  Friends 
to  determine  for  themselves,  what  was  befit- 
ting the  spirituality  of  the  Gospel  dispensation, 
instead  of  ascertaining  it  solely  from  the  doc- 
trines and  practices  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
and  his  Apostles,  as  set  forth  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. 

With  the  natural  proneness  of  man  to  error, 
every  thing  which  draws  the  mind  from  a  de- 
pendance  on  the  written  revelation,  for  the 
doctrines  of  true  religion,  must  inevitably  lead 
to  the  perversion  or  abandonment  of  some 
truth.  I  believe  this  natural  result  has  been 
strikingly  exhibited  by  the  Society  of  Friends, 
in  their  total  rejection  of  the  ordinances  of 
Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  taught  in 
the  New  Testament.  To  the  former  of  these, 
it  is  my  object,  in  the  following  pages,  to  draw 
your  attention. 

I  am  well  aware  of  the  ground  taken  by 
the  Society,  that  baptism  with  water  was  a 
Jewish  rite,  appointed  under  the  law,  and 
though  permitted  to  the  weakness  of  the  infant 
Christian  Church,  was  of  a  carnal  nature,  in- 
consistent with  its  more  mature  state,  and  not 
in  accordance  with  the  spiritual  nature  of  the 
Christian  religion.  Believing  this  conclusion 
to  be  erroneous,  and  that  it  has  been  attended 
with  consequences  inimical  to  the  reception  of 
the  whole  Gospel,  as  set  forth  by  the  Apostles 


AN  ORDINANCE  OF  CHRIST.  9 

of  our  Lord,  I  am  inclined  to  lay  before  you 
the  grounds,  which  have  proved  satisfactorily 
to  my  mind,  that  water  baptism  is  Divinely 
appointed  as  a  standing  ordinance  in  the 
Christian  dispensation. 

The  design  of  John's  baptism,  as  he  himself 
declared,  was,  that  Jesus  Christ,  the  Lamb  of 
God,  should  be  made  known  to  Israel.  "  That 
he  should  be  made  manifest  to  Israel,  there- 
fore am  I  come  baptizing  with  water." — 
John,  i.  31. 

That  John's  baptism  was  of  Divine  appoint- 
ment, no  one  who  believes  the  Scripture  will 
question.  The  proofs  are  abundant — ''There 
was  a  man  sent  from  God,  whose  name  was 
John."  John,  i.  6.  ''  He  that  sent  me  to 
baptize  with  water,  the  same  said  unto  me, 
upon  whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  descend- 
ing and  remaining  on  him,  the  same  is  he 
which  baptizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost :  and  I 
saw,  and  bare  record  that  this  is  the  Son  of 
God."— John,  i.  33,  34. 

These  passages  may  suffice  in  proof  of  the 
Divine  appointment  of  John's  baptism;  but 
although  John  was  the  herald  of  Christ,  and 
his  baptism  was  of  Divine  appointment,  he  con- 
stantly asserted,  that  when  Christ  was  come, 
his  own  mission  would  gradually  close.  "  He 
must  increase,  but  I  must  decrease,"  was  his 
emphatic  testimony.  And  so  we  find  it  really 
proved.  Only  a  very  short  period  elapsed, 
after  he  had  announced  the  Lamb  of  God 
a2 


6  WATER  BAPTISM 

which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,  be- 
fore he  was  beheaded,  and  his  baptism,  so  far 
as  appears,  came  to  ^full  end.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  disciples  of  Him  of  whom  John  was 
the  harbinger — the  King  of  Kings,  and  Lord 
of  Lords,  of  Him  to  whom  the  promise  was 
made,  "  I  shall  give  thee  the  Heathen  for  thine 
inheritance,  and  the  uttermost  parts  of  the 
earth  for  thy  possession,"  have  been  making 
disciples,  and  baptizing  with  water,  in  His 
name,  from  that  day  to  the  present.  So  lite- 
rally has  the  testimony  of  John  been  fulfilled. 
But  as  John's  baptism  was  only  preparatory 
to  the  Christian  dispensation,  and  not  a  part 
of  it;  and  as  evidence  will  be  adduced  in  its 
proper  place  io  prove,  that  water  baptism,  as 
practised  in  the  Christian  Church  after  the 
ascension  of  our  Lord,  was  essentially  distinct 
from  John's  Baptism;  there  is  no  necessity 
here  to  dwell  upon  it,  further  than  to  adduce 
one  single  passage  which  appeared  to  me  not 
inappropriate,  as  proving,  (not,  indeed,  in  ex- 
press terms,  but  by  implication,)  that  the  bap- 
tism (unto  Christ)  by  the  Apostles  was  not 
considered,  even  during  our  Lord's  ministry  on 
earth,  the  same  as  the  baptism  of  John,  not- 
withstanding in  both  cases  water  was  used. 
The  Evangelist  John  says,  chap.  iii.  25,  26, 
"  Then  there  arose  a  question  between  some 
of  John's  disciples,  and  the  Jews,  about  puri- 
fying, and  they  came  unto  John,  and  said  unto 
him,  Rabbi,  He  that  was  with  thee  beyond 


AN   ORDINANCE  OF  CHRIST.  7 

Jordan,  to  whom  thou  bearest  witness,  behold 
the  same  baptizeth,  and  all  men  come  to 
hiiny  These  men  do  not  appear  to  have  con- 
sidered the  baptism  of  Christ,  through  the 
Apostles,  as  identical  with  John's  baptism, 
neither  does  it  appear,  by  the  reply  which 
John  made  to  them,  that  he  himself  so  con- 
sidered them.  See  v.  27,  to  the  end  of  the 
chapter. 

In  the  last  sentence  T  used  the  phrase,  '*  the 
baptism  of  Christ  through  the  Apostles,"  and 
I  thought  I  was  warranted  in  doing  so,  from 
the  concluding  words  in  the  quotation,  viz., 
''  He  that  was  with  thee  beyond  Jordan,  to 
whom  thou  barest  witness,  behold  the  same 
baptizeth,  and  all  men  come  to  him."  It  will, 
however,  be  needful  here  to  determine,  by  a 
full  examination  of  Scriptuie,  whether  the 
baptism  administered  by  the  Apostles  during 
our  Lord's  ministry  was  under  his  authority, 
or  it  was  not;  as  I  am  aware  it  is  a  point  in 
dispute,  and  I  had  been  taught  to  believe,  that 
it  was  not  administered  under  his  authority, 
but  only  permitted  in  condescension  to  the 
Jewish  prejudices  of  the  Apostles  and  early 
believers. 

In  addition,  then,  to  the  passage  above  quot- 
ed, we  find  it  recorded  (in  v.  22  of  the  same 
chapter,)  as  the  testimony  of  the  Evangelist 
himself,  that  "  Jesus  baptized. "  "  After  these 
things  came  Jesus  and  his  disciples  into  the 


8  WATER  BAPTISM 

land  of  Judea,  and  there  He  tarried  with  them 
and  baptized." 

In  the  iv.  chap.  v.  1 — 3,  the  same  Evan- 
gelist says,  "  When,  therefore,  the  Lord  knew 
that  the  Pharisees  had  heard,  that  Jesus  made 
and  ^^jo/zVe^  more  disciples  than  John,  (though 
Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but  his  disciples,) 
he  left  Judea,"  &c.  Now  I  could  see  no  al- 
ternative between  understanding  this  paren- 
thesis as  an  entire  coiitradiction  of  what  the 
Apostle  had  previously  asserted,  or,  as  expla- 
natory of  the  I'jay  in  which  baptism  was  ad- 
ministered by  Christ,  to  v/it,  through  His 
disciples  acting  in  His  name^  and  by  His  au- 
thority. The  latter  interpretation,  which  is 
in  accordance  with  fair  criticism,  and  is  the 
only  one  consistent  with  the  veracity  of  the 
writer,  I  could  not  hesitate  to  adopt,  but  it 
proved  to  me  that  water  baptism  was  an  or- 
dinance of  our  Lord,  during  his  personal  mi- 
nistry on  earth  ;  and  it  invalidated  every  argu- 
ment which  I  had  been  accustomed  to  hear 
against  water  baptism,  on  the  assumption,  that 
the  ordinance  was  merely  a  Jewish  rite,  and 
identical  with  tlie  baptism  of  John  ;  because, 
if  water  baptism  was  administered  under  the 
authority  of  Christ,  (and  less  than  this  surely 
is  not  implied  in  the  words  Jesus  baptized,) 
every  attempt  to  discredit  or  invalidate  His 
ordinance,  by  asserting  its  identity  with  any 
former  rite,  I  thought  would  be,  to  say  the 
least,  highly  presumptuous. 


AN  ORDINANCE  OF  CHRIST.  9 

The  proof  I  regarded  as  demonstrative, 
(not  that  Jesus  baptized  with  his  own  hands, 
but)  that  water  baptism,  as  administered  by 
the  disciples  of  our  Lord,  was  an  ordinance 
OF  Christ. 

Still,  this  proof  did  not  furnish  me  with  con- 
clusive evidence  that  water  baptism  was  to 
be  a  standing  ordinance  in  the  church.  It 
might  be  intended  to  continue  only  during  the 
personal  ministry  of  Christ  on  earth.  Pur- 
suing my  examination,  I  found,  however,  in 
the  xxviii.  chap,  of  JViatt.  and  xvi.  chap,  of 
JVlark,  that  after  the  Lord  Jesus  had  fulfilled 
the  whole  law — after  He  had  said  "  it  is  finish- 
ed,"— after  He  had  bowed  His  head  and  given 
up  the  ghost — -after  His  resurrection  from  the 
dead,  and  just  before  His  ascension  into  heaven 
— in  the  very  last  communication  with  His 
Apostles,  when  He  greatly  extended  their 
commission,  even  to  go  and  make  disciples  of 
all  nations.  He,  in  this  commission,  associated 
baptism  with  teaching  and  preaching,  in  the 
following  remarkable  words  : — 

"  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and 
in  earth.  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  na- 
tions, bajoiizing  them  in  [or  into]  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost:  teaching  the^n  to  observe  all  things 
ivhatsoever  I  have  commanded  you  ;  and, 
lo  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of 
the  world.     Amen." 

*'Goye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the 


10  WATER   BAPTISM 

Gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  ;  but  he  that 
beheveth  not  shall  be  damned." 

That  water  baptism  is  a  standing  ordi- 
nance in  the  Church  of  Christ  I  thought  would 
be  proved,  if,  in  these  passages,  the  Lord 
Jesus  did,  indeed,  speak  of  water  baptism;  and 
I  acknowledge  that  it  did  appear  to  me  not 
improbable  that  such  was  the  case,  when  I 
remembered,  that,  in  the  very  work  of  making 
and  confirming  disciples,  in  which,  to  a  very 
considerable  extent,  the  Lord  Jesus  and  his 
Apostles  had  already  been  engaged;  teaching 
and  baptizing  with  water,  were  the  means 
which  they  had  hitherto  used ;— but  the  evi- 
dence I  still  thought  was  not  conclusive,  and 
I  was  aware,  that  the  Society  of  Friends 
maintain,  that  it  is  ?iot  ivatcr  baptism  which 
is  spoken  of  in  this  commission,  but  that  it  is 
the  baptism  which  John  speaks  of  as  the  pre- 
rogative of  Christ;  "  He  shall  baptize  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire;"  and  that  this  bap- 
tism was  in  that  commission  delegated  by  Christ 
to  his  Apostles  and  ministers :  and  that  it  was, 
in  the  Apostolic  Church,  and  is  now,  to  be  ad- 
ministered through  preaching.* 

*  The  following  remarks  have  no  reference  to  the  ques- 
tion, whether  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given  by  the  Apostles 
in  the  imposition  of  hands.  On  that  subject  no  sentiment 
is  here  offered.  The  simple  question  is,  whether  there  is 
evidence  that,  to  the  Apostles  and  ministers  of  the  Gospel, 
it  was  delegated  to  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost  m  preach- 
ing. 


AN  ORDINANCE  OF  CHRIST.  11 

I  could  not  but  regard  this  as  a  bold  position, 
and  one  which  demanded  from  me  the  most 
careful  investigation,  as  nothing  short  of  clear 
Scripture  evidence,  I  thought,  could  warrant 
me,  in  assuming  to  myself,  or  even  conceding 
to  others,  that  Divine  power  which  is  stated 
in  Scripture  as  the  prerogative  of  Christ ; — at 
the  same  time  [  was  fully  prepared  to  admit, 
that,  if  it  was  a  doctrine  taught  in  Scripture, 
the  belief  of  it  was  imperative. 

As  the  whole  instrumental  means  appointed 
by  the  Lord  Jesus  in  this  commission,  for  effect- 
ing the  mighty  work  of  converting  mankind, 
was  comprised  in  teaching  and  baptizing,  so 
it  will  be  admitted,  that  it  was  of  great  mo- 
ment, that  the  Apostles  should  not  be  mistaken 
with  regard  to  the  signification  of  the  latter 
article,  viz :  baptizing,  in  which  so  material 
a  part  of  their  duty  consisted,  and  which  af- 
fected the  spiritual  interests  of  countless  my- 
riads of  the  human  race. 

In  the  words  of  the  commission  itself,  I  con- 
fess, I  could  not  perceive  that  it  was  delegat- 
ed to  the  Apostles,  to  baptize  in  preaching, 
with  the  Hol}^  Ghost  and  fire  ;  nor  could  I  per- 
ceive, that  the  Lord  Jesus  gave  to  the  Apos- 
tles, information,  that  the  baptism,  which  they 
should  henceforth  administer,  was  any  other 
than  that  which  they  had  all  along  administer- 
ed under  his  authority.  Had  it  been  his  will, 
that  water  baptism  should  cease,  or  be  super- 
seded by  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and 


12  WATER  BAPTISM 

lire,  to  be  administered  through  preaching,  I 
could  not  conceive,  that  when  He  was  send- 
ing forth  the  Apostles  to  preach  and  baptize, 
with  a  much  enlarged  commission,  he  should 
not  have  told  them  of  the  change.  But  I 
thought,  if  it  could  be  ascertained  how  the 
Apostles  understood  the  commission,  which 
they  received  immediately  from  the  mouth  of 
their  Divine  Master,  the  evidence  thus  fur- 
nished would  be  conclusive. 

On  turning  to  the  ii.  chap,  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  T  found,  that  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost— on  the  very  first  public  act  of  the 
Apostles  in  the  exercise  of  their  high  com- 
mission after  the  ascension  of  our  Lord,  "There 
appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues  Kke  as 
of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them,  and  they 
were  ^W  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  Then 
was  fulfilled  with  regard  to  them,  in  the  most 
remarkable  manner,  the  promise  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  "  Ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  not  many  days  hence,"  and  also  the  de- 
claration of  John  the  Baptist;  "He  shall 
baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire."* 

I  could  not  but  consider  that  the  circum- 
stances attending  this  memorable  occasion, 
might  have  an  important  bearing  on  the  ques- 
tion of  the  nature  of  Christian  baptism.    The 

*  I  need  hardly  say  that  the  expression,  "  to  be  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  "  to  receive  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  I  have  taken  as  synonymous. 


AN  ORDINANCE  OF  CHRIST.  13 

position  of  the  Apostles  was  without  parallel; 
never  before  had  any  body  of  men  been 
honored  with  the  same  power  and  authority. 
U  ever  men  were  enabled  to  baptize  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  preaching,  surely  then  were 
the  Apostles  ;  and  if  it  could  ever  be  known 
whether  water  baptism  is  any  part  of  the 
Christian  dispensation,  it  was  certainly  to  be 
determined  by  the  conduct  of  the  companions 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  acting  under  the 
plenary  inspiration  of  the  Spirit,  which  He 
thus  wonderfully  shed  upon  them. 

Then  was  presented  to  my  mind  the  inquiry : 
Do  we  find  that  Peter,  with  the  eleven,  i?i 
preaching,  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  I 
sensibly  felt  how  much  depended  on  the  an- 
swer to  this  question — and  I  trust  I  was  de- 
sirous of  obtaining  this  answer  from  the  records 
of  inspiration.  I  found  that  when  the  Apostles 
had  fulfilled  the  first  part  of  their  commission 
— when  through  their  preaching,  three  thou- 
sand were  pricked  in  their  heart,  and  cried 
out,  "  Men  and  brethren,  what  shall  we  do  ?" 
the  answer  was,  "  Repent,  and  be  baptized, 
every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ, 
for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  that  this  pro- 
mise did  not  relate  exclusively  to  the  extra- 
ordinary, but  also  to  the  ordinary  gifts  of  the 
Spirit,  is  plain,  from  the  next  verse,  where  it 
is  said,  "For  the  promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your 

B 


14  WATER  BAPTISM 

children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as 
many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call." 

Three  things  are  here  enumerated,  Repen- 
tance, Baptism  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ 
for  the  remission  of  sins,  and,  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

If  the  Apostles  by  baptism,  meant  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Ghost,  then  it  was  clear  to 
my  mind  that  the  three  thousand  had  not  been 
already  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  hy  the 
preaching  of  the  Apostles  ;  and  if  they  were 
not  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  by  the 
preaching  of  the  Apostles,  who  were  filled 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  under  the  miraculous^ 
manifestation  of  Divine  power ;  then,  the  as' 
sumption,  that  Christ  in  his  last  commission,, 
delegated  to  his  ministers  the  power  of  bap- 
tizing with  the  Holy  Ghost  through  their 
preaching,  it  seemed  to  me  was  destitute  of 
foundation,  and  that  the  system  built  upon  \i 
must  fall  to  the  ground. 

Again, if  thethree  thousand  hadbeen  baptiz- 
ed with  the  Holy  Ghost  by  the  preaching  of  the 
Apostles,  it  was  equally  clear,  that  an  inspired 
Apostle,  could  not  immediately  have  told  them 
to  "  he  baptized^^  with  that,  with  which  they 
were  already  baptized,  nor  could  they  have 
assured  them,  that  on  6ez?z^  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  they  should  receive  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  which  gift  they  had  already 
received,  if  they  were  already  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Ghost.     As,  then,  he  could  not  re- 


AN   ORDINANCE  OF  CHRIST-  15 

fer  to  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  was 
plain  that  he  could  only  refer  to  baptism  with 
water. 

I  had,  therefore,  no  alternative  but  to  con- 
clude, that  when  the  three  thousand  w^re 
baptized,  they  were  baptized  with  water,  by 
the  direction  of  the  Ajjostles,  who  were  ail 
present,  and  being^//e<i  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
spake  hy  the  Spirit,  or,  which  I  apprehend  is 
equivalent,  they  were  baptized  by  direction  of 
THE  Spirit  speaking  through  thein. 

But  if  THE  Spirit,  through  the  Apostles, 
directed  the  people  to  be  baptized  with  water, 
then,  undeniably,  water  baptism  is  a  Christian 
ordinance  ;  and  in  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit, 
through  the  Apostles,  to  this  ordinance,  we 
have  indubitable  proof,  as  it  appears  to  me, 
(for  we  cannot  imagine  the  will  of  the  Spirit, 
and  the  will  of  Christ,  to  be  at  variance)  that 
our  Lord,  in  his  last  commission  before  his 
ascension,  enjoined  water  baptism,  and  if  he 
there  enjoined  water  baptism,  then  water  bap- 
tism is  as  much  a  standing  ordinance  in  his 
church,  as  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel. 

Permit  me  nowr,  in  Christian  affection,  to 
beg  your  candid  attention,  to  the  evidence 
afforded  in  two  other  cases  of  baptism  record- 
ed in  the  New  Testament.  I  mean  the  case 
of  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch,  and  that  of  Cor- 
nelius. 

The  case  of  the  Eunuch  is  recorded.  Acts 


16  WATER  BAPTISM 

viii.  26 — 39,  "The  Angel  of  the  Lord  spake 
unto  Philip,  saying,  Arise,  and  go  toward  the 
south,  unto  the  way  tliat  goetli  dov/n  from 
Jerusalem  unto  Gaza." — And  he  arose  and 
went;  and  behold,  a  man  of  Ethiopia,  an 
Eunuch,  who  had  come  to  Jerusalem  to  wor- 
ship, was  returning,  and  sitting  in  his  chariot, 
read  Esaias,  the  Prophet.  Then  the  Spirit 
said  unto  Philip,  "  Go  near  and  join  thyself 
unto  this  chariot."  Philip  went  and  preached 
unto  him  Jesus.  After  this,  the  Eunuch  said, 
"  See,  here  is  water,  what  doth  hinder  me  to 
be  baptized?"  Philip  said,  "  if  thou  believest 
with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayst" — he  confess- 
ed ;  and  Philip  baptized  him.  "  And  when 
they  were  come  up  out  of  the  water,  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught  away  Philip,  that 
the  Eunuch  saw  him  no  more." 

Under  this  extraordinary  manifestation  of 
Divine  direction  and  authority — first  of  the  An- 
gel OF  the  Lord, and  thenof  the  Spirit, Philip 
baptized  the  Eunuch  with  water,  and  when 
he  had  done  it,  the  sacred  text  says — "the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught  away  Philip." 
The  fact  of  Philip  having  baptized  the  Eunuch 
with  water,  when  acting  under  the  direction 
of  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  I  thought  was  evidence  that  he  acted 
in  conformity  with  the  commission  of  Christ, 
and  fully  proved  that  water  baptism  is  a  Di- 
vine ordinance  in  the  Christian  dispensation. 
But  did  he  baptize  the  Eunuch  with  the  Holy 


AlV  ORDINANCE  OP  CHRIST.  17' 

Ghost  when  he    preached  unto  him  Jesus  ? 
There  is  no  intimation  of  it. 

The  case  of  Cornelius  is  recorded,  Acts  x. 
5 — 48.  The  circumstances  of  this  case,  from 
first  to  last,  are  wonderfully  marked  by  Di- 
vine interposition  and  direction.  An  Angel 
of  God  appears  to  Cornelius  in  a  vision,  and 
directs  him  to  send  for  Peter,  saying,  "Ae  shall 
tell  thee  what  thou  oughtest  to  do."  Cor- 
nelius sends  three  men  to  Joppa  for  Peter. 
While  they  are  on  the  journey,  Peter  is  pre- 
pared for  the  great  event  of  the  admission  of 
Gentile  believers  into  the  Christian  Church,  by 
a  vision,  in  which  the  hand  of  God  is  distinctly 
acknowledged;  God  s/ioweth  Peter  that  he 
should  not  call  any  man  common  or  unclean. 
While  Peter  thinks  on  the  vision,  the  Spirit 
says  unto  him,  "  Behold  three  men  seek  thee, 
Arise,  therefore,  and  get  thee  down  and  go 
with  them,  doubting  notliing:  for  I  have  sent 
themy  Peter  goes  with  them,  and  preaches 
Christ  to  Cornelius  and  his  friends.  While 
he  speaks,  the  Holy  Ghost  falls  on  all  them 
that  heard  the  Word.*     They,  of  the  circum- 

*  This,  I  think,  is  the  only  case  in  Scripture  that  seems 
to  afford  the  least  ground  for  the  hypothesis,  that  to  mi- 
nisters of  the  Gospel  it  is  delegated  to  baptize  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  in  their  preaching.  I  freely  acknowledge 
that  if  it  -were  a  doctrine  of  Scripture,  I  could  not  have 
hesitated  to  admit  this  case  as  a  corroboration  of  it ;  but, 
in  the  absence  of  all  proof,  that  it  is  a  Scripture  doctrine, 
and  with  much  evidence  that  it  is  not,  this  case  is  surely 
not  sufficient  to  build  the  doctrine  upon.  And,  it  is  to  be  ob- 

b2 


18  WATER  BAPTISM 

cision,  who  came  with  Peter,  are  astonished, 
"  because  that  on  the  Gentiles  also  is  poured 
out  the  Gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  for  they  heard 
them  speak  with  tongues.  Peter  says,  can 
any  man  forbid  water,*  that  these  should  not 
be  baptized  which  have  received  the  Holy 
Ghost  as  well  as  we  1  Jind  he  commanded 
them  to  he  baptized  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord.''^  In  rehearsing  the  matter  to  the  Apos- 
tles and  brethren  at  Jerusalem,  Peter  says,  as 
I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy  GihoBtfellon  them. 
AS  ON  us  at  the  beginning ;  then  remembered 
I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  how  that  he  said,  John, 
indeed,  baptized  with  water;  but  ye  shall  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  Forasmuch, 
then,  as  God  gave  them  the  like  gifts  as  he 
did  unto  us,  who  believed  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  what  was  /,  that  I  could  withstand 
God? 


served,  that,  although  Peter  says  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  upon 
them  as  he  began  to  speak,  yet,  the  narrative  does  not  im- 
ply that  he  apprehended  that  by  his  preaching  he  com- 
municated the  Holy  Ghost.  He  says,  Acts  xi.  15.  "  As 
I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost  fkli,  on  them,  as  ots  vs 
at  the  beginning  ;^^  and,  again,  v.  17,  "  Forasmuch,  then, 
as  God  gave  them  like  gifts  as  He  did  unto  us,  who  be- 
lieved on  the  Lord  Jesus,  v^hat  was  I,  that  I  could  with- 
stand God?" 

*  The  way  in  which  Peter  here  uses  the  woid  -water,  I 
thought,  implied  that  the  ordinance  itself,  among  the  early 
Christians,  was  recognized  by  the  term,  -water,  and  that 
Peter's  question  was  equivalent  to  this — Can  any  man 
forbid  to  these  Gentiles  the  usual  token  of  admission  into 
the  Christian  Church. 


AN  ORDINANCE  OF  CHRIST.  19 

In  this  case,  it  appears,  that  after  Corne- 
lius and  his  friends  were  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  Peter,  under  the  immediate  di- 
rection of  THE  Holy  Spirit,  and  agreeably  to 
the  word  of  the  Angel  to  Cornelius,  "  He  shall 
tell  thee  what  thou  oughtest  to  do,"  com- 
manded them  to  be  baptized  with  water. 

The  several  clear  and  distinct  evidences  in 
this  case,  each  proving  the  Divine  authority 
for  the  conduct  of  Peter  throughout  this  trans- 
action, and  all  brought  into  a  focus,  probably 
have  no  parallel  in  Scripture.  An  Angel  of 
God  sent  to  Cornelius — God  himself,  instruct- 
ing Peter ; — the  Spirit  commanding  him  to  go 
with  the  messengers,  declaring,  "  I  have  sent 
them;"  the  baptism  of  Christ,  viz:  that  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  falling  upon  Cornelius  and  his 
friends,  while  Peter  preached; — and,  lastly, 
the  testimony  of  this  inspired  Apostle,  as  to 
the  authority  under  which  he  acted,  contained 
in  the  cogent  query,  "  What  was  1,  that  I  could 
withstand  God," — alltaken  together,  I  thought, 
afforded  most  indubitable  proof,  that  water 
baptism  is  a  Divine  ordinance  in  the  Christian 
dispensation  : — that  it  is  the  baptism  instituted 
by  Christ,  to  be  administered  by  man  ;  not, 
indeed,  by  the  baptism  of  which  John  em- 
phatically speaks,  as  that  which  it  is  the  pre- 
rogative of  Christ,  himself,  to  administer,  "  He 
shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
fire."  The  two  baptisms  are  here  distinctly 
recognized,  and  so  far  from  the  baptism  of  the 


20  WATER  BAPTISM 

Holy  Ghost  being  intended  to  supersede  the 
baptism  of  water,  it  is  plain,  that  in  this  in- 
stance, the  inspired  Apostle  makes  the  evi- 
dence of  the  reception  of  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,  the  very  ground  for  the  propriety  of  ad- 
ministering the  baptism  of  water  to  the  Gentile 
believers,  in  the  same  way  as  the  Apostles  and 
their  fellow-laborers  had  been  accu&tomed  ic> 
administer  it  to  Jewish  believers. 

In  a  case  so  singular  for  its  importance, 
being  the  first  admission  of  Gentile  converts 
into  the  Christian  Church,  and  so  strikingly 
marked  by  Divine  direction,  [  could  not  but 
conclude,  that  Peter  acted  wholly  under  the 
authority  of  God,  and,  if  under  the  authority 
of  God,  then  in  conformity  with  the  commis- 
sion of  Christ, 

Each  of  these  three  instances,  it  appeared 
to  me,  was  a  7?r«c/ec«/ comment  on  that  com* 
mission;  and  that  taken  together,  they  fur- 
nished a  conclusive  proof  that  the  Apostles 
considered  that  water  baptism  formed  a  part  of 
this  commission.  These  cases  repel  every  idea 
that  water  baptism  was  permitted  in  conde- 
scension to  the  Judaical  prejudices,  or  the  in- 
fantile state  of  the  Apostles.  They  abundantly 
demonstrate  that  the  Apostles  acted  under 
the  full  light  of  immediate  revelation,  and  they 
show  that,  in   the  Apostolic  Church,  water 


AN  ORDINANCE  OF  CHRIST.  21 

baptism  was  taught  and  practised  under  the 
authority  of  God.  But  if  it  was  practised 
under  the  authority  of  God,  it  was,  undoubt- 
edly, in  conformity  with  the  commission  of 
Christ,  and,  if  a  part  of  that  commission,  which 
was  to  continue  to  the  end  of  the  world,  it 
appeared  to  me,  the  proof  was  unanswerable, 
that  water  baptism  is  a  standing  ordinance 
in  His  church. 

With  this  evidence,  I  thought,  that  for  any 
people  to  determine  that  water  baptism  formed 
no  part  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  would  be 
to  decide  that  the  Apostles,  acting  under  the 
Holy  Spirit,  were  in  error  in  directing  it;  and 
to  set  up  an  opinion  in  opposition  to  the  in- 
spired judgment  of  the  Apostles,  would  not  only 
be  in  the  highest  degree  presumptuous,  but 
would  tend  to  destroy  the  whole  authority  of 
the  Divine  written  revelation  ;  for  if  one  body 
claimed  the  right  to  say  the  Apostles  were  un- 
der mistake,  when  they  gave  the  most  mira- 
culous proof  of  their  Divine  authority,  another 
would  have  an  equal  right  to  set  up  their 
opinion,  in  opposition  to  any  other  doctrine 
which  the  Apostles  taught,  and  thus  the  very 
fabric  of  Christianity  would  be  destroyed. 

If,  then,  it  is  proved,  that  water  baptism  is 
of  Divine  appointment,  and  a  part  of  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation,  it  follows,  of  course,  that 
every  passage  in  Scripture,  which  refers  to 
jthe  subject,  whether  doctrinally  or  circum- 


22  WATER  BAPTISM 

staiitially,  must  be  so  interpreted  as  not  to  be 
at  variance  with  this  settled  position. 

I  shall  now  only  glance  at  each  of  the  re- 
maining cases  of  baptism,  recorded  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  not  so  much  for  the  sake  of 
proving  that  water  baptism  is  a  part  of  the 
Christian  dispensation,  for  that  I  consider  to  be 
established,  as,  that  the  reader  may,  at  once, 
see  the  amount  of  evidence  which  they  atfbrd 
on  two  points,  viz  :  1st,  whether  to  baptize 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  preaching,  was  de- 
legated to  the  Apostles  and  ministers  of  the 
Gospel  ?  and,  2d,  whether  the  cases  relate  to 
baptism  with  water? 

The  first  is  that  of  Philip  baptizing  the  Sa- 
maritans, Acts  viii.  5 — 16.  Under  the  power 
of  the  Spirit,  Philip  preached  Christ,  and 
wrought  miracles ;  the  Samaritans  believed  and 
were  baptized,  both  men  and  women.  It  is 
clear  that  Philip,  in  his  preaching,  did  not 
baptize  them  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  for,  in  the 
16th  verse,  it  is  said,  "  As  yet,  He  (the  Holy 
Ghost,)  was  fallen  upon  none  of  them,  only 
they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus."  But  if  Philip  did  not  baptize  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  it  is  plain  that  they  were  baptized 
with  water,  which,  indeed,  is  implied  in  the 
words,  '*  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus."  That  Simon  Magus  should  be  bap- 
tized, in  no  degree  proves,  that  the  ordinance 
was  not  of  Divine  appointment ;  nor  is  it  more 


AN  ORDINANCE  OF  CHRIST.  23 

extraordinary,   than   that   Judas  should    be 
chosen  an  Apostle. 

The  next  is  the  case  of  Saul  of  Tarsus, 
Acts  ix.  3 — 19.  The  Lord  Jesus  said  unto 
Saul,  "  Arise,  and  go  into  Damascus,  and  there 
it  shall  be  told  thee  of  all  things  that  are  ap- 
pointed for  thee  to  do.'''  And  we  read,  that 
Annanias,  who  was  prepared  and  sent  by  the 
Lord  Jesus,  put  his  hands  on  him,  and  said, 
**  the  Lord,  even  Jesus,  that  appeared  to  thee 
in  the  way,  as  thou  earnest,  hath  sent  me, 
that  thou  mightest  receive  thy  sight,  and  be 
filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  And,  after  stat- 
ing  the  gracious  design  which  God  had,  with 
regard  to  him,  (see  chap.  xxii.  14 — 16,)  we 
find,  that  what  he  told  him  to  do^  was  in  the 
following  words,  "  Arise,  and  he  baptized^  and 
wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of 
the  Lord."  The  text  then  says,  "•  And,  im- 
mediately, there  fell  from  his  eyes,  as  it  had 
been,  scales,  and  he  received  sight  forthwith, 
and  arose,  and  was  baptized.^''  Did  Annanias, 
in  his  preaching,  baptize  Saul  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  ?  The  narrative,  I  thought,  was  con- 
clusive, that  he  did  not ;  and  if  it  was  not  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  is  here  spoken 
of,  it  is  clear,  that  Saul  was  baptized  with 
water;  consequently,  water  baptism  is  a  Chris- 
tian ordinance,  or  Annanias  misled  the  Apostle 
in  directing  it.  The  conclusion,  that  Anna- 
nias did  what  was  contrary  to  the    will  of 


24  WATER  BAPTISM 

Christ,  whilst  acting  under  his  direction,  is  too 
absurd  to  be  admitted. 

The  next  case  is  that  of  Lydia,  Acts  xvi* 
15.  It  is  related  as  follows,  *'  And  a  certain 
woman,  named  Lydia,  heard  us — whose  heart 
the  Lord  opened,  that  she  attended  to  the 
things  which  were  spoken  of  Paul.  And  when 
she  was  baptized,  and  her  household,  she  be- 
sought us,  &c. 

The  next  is  that  of  the  jailor,  at  Philippi, 
Acts  xvi.  27 — 84.  Paul  and  Silas  spake  unto 
him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were 
in  his  house.  "And  he  took  them  the  same  hour 
of  the  night,  and  washed  their  stripes,  and  was 
baptized,  he,  and  all  his,  straightway.  And 
when  he  had  brought  them  into  his  house,  he 
set  meat  before  them,  and  rejoiced,  believing 
in  God,  with  all  his  house."  In  these  two 
cases,  there  is  no  intimation  that  the  Apostle 
and  his  companion,  in  their  preaching,  bap- 
tized with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  if  not,  then 
they  baptized  with  water. 

The  next  instance,  is  Acts  xviii.  it  relates 
to  the  believers  in  Corinth.  It  appears,  that 
when  Paul  was  at  Corinth,  accompanied  by 
Silas  and  Timotheus,  he  abode  there  a  con- 
siderable time,  and,  at  first,  reasoned  in  the 
synagogue,  every  Sabbath,  with  the  Jews : 
but  when  they  opposed,  he  turned  to  the  Gen- 
tiles. In  the  8th  v.  it  is  said,  "  And  Crispus, 
the  chief  ruler  of  the  synagogue,  believed  on 
the  Lord,  with  all  his  house,  and   many  of 


AN  ORDINANCE  OF  CHRIST.  25 

the  Corinthians  hearing,  believed,  and  were 
baptized'^  I  thought  it  might  be  well  to  con- 
sider this  passage,  in  connexion  with  what 
Paul  says,  in  the  i.  chap,  of  first  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians.  After  alluding  to  divisions 
and  contentions  among  them,  v.  12 — 17,  he 
says,  "  Now  this  I  say,  that  every  one  of  you 
saith,  I  am  of  Paul;  and  I  of  Apollos;  and  I 
of  Cephas;  and  I  of  Christ.  Is  Christ  divided? 
Was  Paul  crucified  for  you  ?  Or  were  ye  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  Paul  ?  I  thank  God  that 
I  baptized  none  of  you,  but  Crispus  and  Gaius  ; 
lest  any  should  say  that  I  had  baptized  in 
mine  own  name  ;  and  I  baptized,  also,  the 
household  of  Stephanas ;  besides,  I  know  not 
whether  I  baptized  any  other.  For  Christ 
sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the 
Gospel." 

First.  It  appears,  then,  that  Paul  baptized 
certain  individuals,  men  of  eminence  at  Co- 
rinth, with  his  own  hand — Crispus,  the  chief 
ruler  of  the  synagogue ; — Gaius,  his  host,  and 
of  the  whole  church,  (see  Rom.  xvi.  23;) — 
and  the  household  of  Stephanas,  of  whom,  in 
the  xvi.  chap.  15,  16,  he  speaks  as  being  the 
first  fruits  of  Achaia  ; — that  they  had  addicted 
themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints,  and 
to  such  he  exhorts  the  Corinthian  Church  to 
submit  themselves.  That  he  baptized  them 
with  water,  all  will  allow,  and  that  it  was 
under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  I  was 
bound  to  believe. 


26  WATER  BAPTISM 

Second.  That  the  Corinthian  believers  were 
all  baptized,  is  implied  in  the  ie^xt,  "Many  of 
the  Corinthians  hearing,  believed,  and  were 
baptized:"  i.  e.  as  many  as  believed  were  bap- 
tized. It  is,  therefore,  plain,  that  Paul  only 
baptized  a  few  of  them  with  his  own  hands, 
this  part  of  the  work  of  the  Lord  had  devolved 
chiefly  on  his  fellow  laborers.  The  Apostle's 
query — Were  ye  baptized  in  the  name  of 
Paul? — furnishes  another  inferential  proof, 
that  all  the  Corinthians,  whom  he  addressed, 
had  been  baptized. 

Third.  In  writing  to  the  Corinthians,  after- 
wards, when  in  their  divisions  and  contentions, 
they  had  arranged  themselves  under  different 
Heads,  the  Apostle  thanks  God  that  he  had 
not  baptized  more  of  them ;  and  the  reason  for 
his  thanksgiving,  on  this  account,  he,  himself, 
assigns,  '^  Lest  any  should  say  I  had  baptized 
in  mine  own  name.^'  To  put  such  a  construc- 
tion on  the  words  of  the  Apostle,  "  Christ  sent 
me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  Gospel," 
as  would  amount  to  his  condemnation  of  water 
baptism ;  or,  to  make  him  say  more,  than  that 
this  part  of  the  work  of  the  Lord  did  not  spe- 
cially devolve  upon  him,  as  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel  did,  as  it  appeared  to  me,  would 
be  to  make  him  implicate  himself,  in  having 
done,  in  his  Apostolic  character,  that  which 
he  was  not  divinely  authorized  to  do.  it  would 
make  his  language  utterly  inconsistent  with 
his  conduct  at  Philippi,,  in  the  two  last  pre- 


AN  ORDINANCE  OF  CHRIST.  27 

ceding  cases,  and  with  the  reverent  manner 
in  which  he  recognises  the  ordinance,  v.  13, 
"Is  Christ  divided?  was  Paul  crucified  for 
you  ?  Or,  were  ye  baptized  in  the  name  of 
PauW^  and  it  would  really  be  to  slander  the 
Apostle,  if  not  the  Holy  Spirit  also,  under 
whom  he  acted. 

In  the  whole  case,  there  is  not  the  least 
evidence  afforded,  of  the  Apostle's  baptizing 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  in  preaching. 

The  next  case  relates  to  Apollos,  Acts,  xviii. 
24 — 26.  "A  certain  Jew,  named  Apollos, 
born  at  Alexandria,  an  eloquent  man,  and 
mighty  in  the  Scriptures,  came  to  Ephesus. 
This  man  was  instructed  in  the  way  of  the 
Lord,  and,  being  fervent  in  spirit,  he  spake 
and  taught  diligently  the  things  of  the  Lord, 
knowing  only  the  baptism  of  John.  And  he 
began  to  speak  boldly  in  the  Synagogue : 
whom,  when  Aquila  and  Priscilla  had  heard, 
they  took  him  unto  them,  and  expounded 
unto  him  the  way  of  God,  more  perfectly." 
It  may  be  well  just  to  notice  the  allusion  here 
made  to  the  baptism  of  John,  which  is  now 
to  be  more  particularly  adverted  to. 

The  last  case  of  baptism,  mentioned  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  is  in  the  xix.  chap.,  1 — 7. 
It  is  as  follows : — The  Apostle  Paul  "  came  to 
Ephesus:  and  finding  certain  disciples,  he  said 
unto  them.  Have  ye  received  the  Holy  Ghost 
since  ye  believed  ?  And  they  said  unto  him. 
We  have  not  so  much  as  heard  whether  there 


2S  WATER  BAPTISM 

be  any  Holy  Ghost,  And  he  said  unto  them, 
unto  what  then  were  ye  baptized?  and  they 
said,  unto  John's  baptism.  Then  said  Paul, 
John  verily  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  re- 
pentance, saying  unto  the  people,  that  they 
should  believe  on  him  which  should  come  after 
him,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus.  When  they 
heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus.  And  when  Paul  had  laid 
his  hands  upon  them,  the  Holy  Ghost  came 
on  them,  and  they  spake  with  tongues,  and 
prophesied.  And  all  the  men  were  about 
twelve." 

This  instance  furnishes  fresh  evidence,  that 
Christian  believers  generally,  if  not  universally, 
were  baptized,  according  to  the  rite  used  in 
the  Apostolic  Church.  This  is  implied  in  the 
question  of  the  Apostle,  '^  To  what  then  were 
ye  baptized  ?"  a  question  evidently  propound- 
ed on  the  presumption,  that  as  they  were  be- 
lievers, they  had,  of  course,  been  baptized. 

It  also  offers  another  proof,  that  water  bap- 
tism is  a  Christian  ordinance.  Let  us  con- 
sider the  position  in  the  church,  which  was 
occupied  by  the  Apostle  Paul.  He  was  the 
acknowledged  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles.  He 
knew  that  they  were  admitted  to  all  the  pri- 
vileges of  the  Gospel,  without  the  observance 
of  any  Jewish  rite;  and,  that  the  truth  of  the 
Gospel  might  rem.ain  with  them,  he  refused 
to  give  place  by  subjection,  even  for  an  hour, 
to  those  Judaising  teachers,  who  were  con- 


AN  ORDINANCE  OF  CHRIST.  29 

stantly  endeavoring  to  bring  the  Gentiles 
under  the  yoke  of  ceremonial  observances. 
When  we  consider  that  the  resistance  of  the 
effort  of  others,  to  mix  Jewish  ordinances  with 
the  Gospel,  was  the  source  of  his  deepest  trials, 
we  cannot  suppose  that  this  inspired  Apostle 
was  defectively  taught,  as  to  the  spirituality 
of  the  Gospel,  by  that  Divine  Master,  from 
whom  alone  he  received  it.  But,  if  water 
baptism,  as  practised  by  the  Apostles,  was 
merely  a  Jewish  rite,  we  are  compelled  to  say, 
that  by  administering  and  sanctioning  it,  he  be- 
trayed the  very  cause  which  he  was  set  by  his 
Lord  to  defend.  The  first  converts  in  Achaia, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  he  baptized  with  his 
own  hands ;  and  that  the  Corinthian  believers, 
who  received  the  Gospel  under  his  ministry, 
were  also  baptized,  is  perfectly  clear.  We 
have  seen  him  at  Philippi,  with  his  compan- 
ions baptizing  Lydia  and  her  household,  and 
the  jailor  and  his  house ;  and  now  we  find  him 
at  Ephesus,  instructing  the  twelve  disciples, 
and  administering,  either  by  himself  or  others, 
the  Christian  rite  of  water  baptism,  to  those 
who  had  previously  received  the  baptism  of 
John. 

This  case  appeared  to  me,  to  afford  most  con- 
clusive evidence,  against  the  unwarranted  as- 
sumption, that  water  baptism  in  the  Christian 
Church,  and  the  baptism  of  John,  were  iden- 
tical. As  in  the  case  of  Cornelius,  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  did  not  supersede  the  bap- 
g2 


30  WATER  BAPTISM 

tism  of  water,  so  it  is  plain  from  this  instance, 
that  the  baptism  of  John,  did  not  supersede  the 
Christian  ordinance  of  water  baptism.  These 
two  cases,  so  ditferent  in  their  features,  are  in 
perfect  harmony  with  the  practice  of  the 
Apostles,  in  receiving  believers  into  the  Church; 
and  afford  evidence  the  most  conclusive,  that 
John's  baptism,  and  Christian  baptism  with 
water,  are  essentially  distinct — and  that  water 
baptism  is  an  ordinance  in  the  Christian 
Church,  and,  that  it  is  perfectly  in  accordance 
with  the  fulness  and  spirituality  of  the  Gospel 
dispensation. 

Having  now,  I  believe,  gone  through  the 
whole  of  the  cases  of  the  administration  of 
baptism,  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  (ex- 
cepting those  in  the  Gospels  that  relate  ex- 
clusively, to  the  baptism  of  John,  and  which 
are  not  relevant  to  the  subject  under  con- 
sideration,) I  remark,  that  in  every  instance, 
(except  that  of  Apollos,  which  does  not  apply,) 
there  appears  to  be  either  positive,  or  circum- 
stantial evidence,  on  one  or  other  of  these 
points,  and,  in  many  of  the  cases,  both  of  the 
positions  are  fully  established,  viz :  1st,  That 
the  Apostles  in  their  preaching  did  not  baptize 
with  the  Holy  Ghost.  And,  2ndly.  That  they 
did  baptize  with  water.  Nor  do  I  believe 
one  single  instance  can  be  produced,  that  fur- 
nishes evidence  of  a  contrary  bearing.  The 
proofs  seem  to  me  as  if  they  might  be  thus 
summed  up. 


AN  ORDINANCE  OF  CHRIST.  31 

1st.  That  the  baptism  of  John  was  of  Divine 
appointment,  to  malfe  way  for  the  dispensa- 
tion of  the  Gospel,  and  was  in  itself,  distinct 
from  any  other  baptism  which  is  recorded  in 
the  New  Testament. 

2nd.  That  Jesus  Christ  did  baptize  with 
water,  though  not  with  his  own  hands. 

3rd.  That  water  baptism  has,  by  Divine 
appointment,  a  place  in  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation.— That  baptism,  with  water,  as  prac- 
tised by  the  Apostles,  was  not  the  baptism  of 
John,  but  was  administered  by  them  accord- 
ing to  the  commission  of  Christ — that  the  mi- 
raculous powers  which  they  exercised,  are 
evidence,  that  they  acted  according  to  the 
will  of  their  Divine  Master ;  and  that  their 
having  baptized  with  water,  when  acting 
under  his  commission,  and  the  plenary  inspira- 
tion of  the  Holy  Ghost,  proves,  beyond  all  doubt, 
that  water  baptism  is  an  ordinance  of  Christ, 
under  the  dispensation  of  the  Gospel. 

4th.  That  water  baptism  was  instituted  by 
Christ,  to  be  administered  by  man,  and  is  dis- 
tinct from  the  baptism  emphatically  announc- 
ed by  John,  as  the  prerogative  of  Christ,  "  He 
shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
fire." 

5th.  That  there  is  no  proof,  either  in  our 
Lord's  last  commission,  before  his  ascension, 
or  in  any  other  part  of  the  New  Testament, 
that  he  delegated  to  the  Apostles  to  baptize 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire,  in  teaching  or 


32  WATER  BAPTISM 

preachmgf  hut  much  circumstantial  evidence 
that  he  did  not ;  and,  therefore,  that  the  con- 
clusion is  altogether  unwarranted  by  Scrip- 
ture, that  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  in  their 
preaching,  do  now  baptize  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  fire. 

6th.  That  to  entertain  the  idea,  that  water 
baptism  was  owXy pej^mit ted,  in  condescension 
to  the  infantile  state,  and  Jewish  prejudices 
of  ^he  Apostles,  would  be  to  destroy  all  con- 
fidence in  the  doctrines  of  the  Apostles,  in- 
spired by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  sap  the  very 
foundation  of  the  Christian  faith. 

I  shall  not,  at  present,  go  into  the  deeply 
instructive  allusions,  which,  in  treating  upon  it 
doctrinally,  the  Apostles  make  to  the  ordinance 
of  baptism,  as  in  Heb.  x.  22 ;  1  Pet.  iii.  21,  and, 
also,  Rom.  vi.  1 — 5;  Gal.  iii.  26,  27;  Col.  ii. 
10 — 14.  In  reference  to  Eph.  iv.  5,  "One 
Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,"  which  text  has 
sometimes  been  urged  against  the  ordinance 
of  baptism,  I  thought  it  would  be  well,  in  seek- 
ing for  an  interpretation,  to  consider  the  pas- 
sage in  connexion  with  Heb.  vi.  6,  where  the 
Apostle  speaks  of  the  doctrine  of  hajotisms 
[plural]  as  among  the  'principles  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ,  which  were  so  settled,  that 
there  was  no  need  for  him  there  to  dwell  upon 
them;  and  that  it  should  also  be  borne  in 
mind  how  fully  the  Apostle  Paul,  in  some  of 
the  instances  which  have  been  adduced,  ac- 
knowledges the  Christian  ordinance  of  water 


AN  ORDINANCE  OF  CHRIST.  33 

baptism,  as  well  as  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  That  the  word,  baptism,  is  sometimes 
used  in  a  figurative  sense,  as  in  Matt.  xx.  22, 
33,  Luke  xii.  50,  I  need  hardly  say. 

That  water  baptism  is  a  Divine  ordinance, 
under  the  Christian  dispensation,  I  think,  has 
been  proved  by  a  body  of  evidence,  than 
which,  there  is  none  more  conclusive  in  the 
Bible.  Permit  me,  then,  to  entreat  you  to 
look  at  it,  not  simply  as  a  rite,  or  ceremony, 
but  to  consider  that  which,  in  the  very  nature 
of  the  thing,  it  implies.  As  teaching  is,  un- 
der God,  the  appointed  means  for  conveying 
the  Gospel  of  life  and  salvation  to  man,  so 
baptism  is  the  appointed  means,  whereby 
man,  in  an  overt  act,  avows  himself  a  disciple 
of  Christ.  He  testifies,  that  he  believes  the 
Gospel,  and  accepts  the  offer  of  that  salva- 
tion which  God  has  provided  through  his  be- 
loved Son.  He  renounces  sin,  and  being  saved 
from  the  guilt  of  past  transgressions,  through 
faith,  in  the  atonement  of  Christ,  so  he  looks 
for  deliverance  from  the  power  of  it,  through 
the  sanctification  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  whose 
aid,  it  is  his  purpose  to  lead  a  holy  and  godly 
life,  and  to  walk  as  becomes  a  disciple  of  that 
Redeemer,  who  having  died  for  his  sins,  and 
risen  again  for  his  justification,  ever  liveth  to 
make  intercession  for  him. 

Less  than  this  will  not  constitute  a  believer, 
in  the  Scripture  sense  of  the  term;  and,  less 
than  this,  is  not  implied  in  baptism. 


34 


WATER  BAPTISM 


Who,  then,  shall  say,  that  such  a  renun- 
ciation of  sin,  hy  an  overt  aci^ — such  a  pro- 
fession of  discipieship, — such  a  dedication  to 
Christ,  deliberately  and  solemnly  made,  in 
obedience  to  Him,  and  in  dependence  upon 
the  Holy  Spirit,  will  be  of  no  avail? — that 
it  will  not  strengthen  the  believer  in  his 
Christian  course  ?  Would  it  not  be  awfully 
presumptuous,  and  dangerous  to  assert  the 
inutility  of  an  ordinance,  instituted  by  God 
for  man's  help,  because  we  might  not  see 
the  adaptation  of  the  means  to  the  end  ?  The 
case  of  Naaman  should  afford  us  an  instructive 
lesson. 

That  the  Lord  may  open  your  eyes,  and 
mine,  that  He  may  incline  our  hearts  to  the 
full  acknowledgment  and  reception  of  the 
whole  Truth, — that  he  may  bless  you,  my 
dear  friends,  abundantly,  and  delight  to  do 
you  good,  is  the  sincere  desire,  and  prayer,  of 
Your  faithful  friend, 

Isaac  Crewdson. 

Ardwick  Green y 
February  \st,  1837. 


AN  ORDINANCE  OF  CHRIST.  35 

Extract  from  a  JMinute  of  the  JMorning  JMeeting  of  JSIi- 
nisters  and  Elders,  held  in  London,  the  10th  of  10th 
Month,  1836. 

"  Information  has  been  now  received,  that  an  ac- 
knowledged Minister  has  submitted  to  the  ceremony  of 
water  baptism,  which  was  performed  by  a  Minister  of  a 
dissenting  congregation. 

"  This  Meeting  thinks  it  right,  to  record  its  deep  con- 
cern on  the  occasion ;  and  its  continued  sense,  that  the 
practice  thus  adverted  to,  (against  vphich  our  rehgious  So- 
ciety has  uniformly  believed  itself  called  upon  to  bear  a 
public  testimony,  as  no  part  of  the  Christian  dispensation) 
was  not  instituted  by  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  whom  we  have 
always  acknowledged  as  the  only  and  supreme  Head  of 
his  Church.' ' 


REASONS 

FOR 

RECEIVING  THE  ORDINANCE 

OF 

CHRISTIA]\  BAPTISm^ 

TO  WHICH  ARE  ADDED 

Some  Observations  on  the  Lord's  Sapper; 

IN  A 

Letter  addressed  to  the  Society  of  Friends. 


BY  ELISHA  BATES. 


WITH   AN    APPENDIX. 


MEMBERS  OF  THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS. 


Dear  Friends, — 

The  relation  in  which  I  stand  to  you,  as  a 
member  of  the  same  society,  and  the  Christian 
friendship  which  I  have  long  felt  for  many  of 
you  individually,  demand  that  I  should,  at 
the  earliest  period  that  circumstances  would 
admit,  inform  you  of  a  step,  which  1  have  be- 
lieved it  my  duty  to  take,  and  of  the  reasons 
which  have  led  me  to  it. 

The  subject  of  the  Ordinances  having  for 
several  years  past  engaged  my  attention,  in 
the  examination  of  the  correctness  or  error  of 
our  peculiar  views  in  regard  to  them,  it  be- 
comes my  duty  to  inform  you,  with  all  readi- 
ness and  candor,  the  result  of  my  inquiries. 

I  was,  as  many  of  you  know,  a  member  of 
this  Society  by  birth-right:  and  I  grew  up  in 
a  strong  attachment  to  the  distinguishing  doc- 
trines and  manners  of  our  profession.  And 
long  did  i  maintain  and  defend  those  senti- 
ments which  I  had  imbibed  as  truth.  In 
early  life,  I  suffered  many  sore  conflicts  of 
mind,  in    besetments   with    temptations   and 


40  bates'  letter, 

under  powerful  convictions  of  sin.  The 
dangers  to  which  I  was  exposed,  and  the  dis- 
tress into  which  I  was  often  plunged,  were 
greatly  increased,  by  the  lack  of  clear  views 
of  Christian  doctrine;  especially  in  regard  to 
faith  in  Christ,  and  justification  by  faith,  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  duty  and 
privilege  of  prayer. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  prolong  this  letter 
by  discussions  on  these  subjects.  I  mention 
them  to  show  my  early  and  strong  attach- 
ment to  the  Society  of  Friends,  and  that 
through  conflicts,  which  can  never  be  de- 
scribed, I  was  brought  to  feel  the  importance 
of  endeavoring  to  know,  and  to  do  the  will  of 
God. 

He  was  graciously  pleased  to  regard  me  in 
my  low  estate,  and  gradually  to  open  my  un- 
derstanding, to  understand  the  Scriptures,  on 
those  important  points  of  doctrine,  which 
have  an  immediate  relation  to  the  salvation 
of  the  soul — among  which  may  be  mentioned 
"Repentance  toward  God,  and  faith  toward 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

These  points  of  doctrine  formed  prominent 
parts  of  the  controversy,  in  which,  a  few 
years  ago,  I  was  engaged  in  my  own  country. 
That  controversy,  and  subsequent  events 
connected  with  it,  through  the  providence 
and  grace  of  God,  were  blessed  to  me,  in 
being  the  means  of  directing  my  attention 
more   closely    to  the   Holy    Scriptures,   aad 


bates'  letter.  41 

through  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  extend- 
ing my  views  of  doctrines  of  fundamental  im- 
portance. 

Having  tasted  the  terrors  of  the  Lord,  I 
was  engaged  to  persuade  men.  And  in  doing 
this,  I  did  not  seek  for  popularity,  nor  en- 
deavor to  adapt  my  preaching  to  the  taste  or 
the  prejtidices  of  my  hearers.  Many  of  you 
can  bear  me  witness,  that  for  preaching  the 
great  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  without  com- 
promise, I  incurred  the  displeasure  of  many, 
who  had  professed  much  friendship  for  me, 
and  who,  in  various  ways,  have  manifested 
that  displeasure.  But  T  felt  bound  to  submit 
to  the  loss  of  friends,  of  reputation,  or  of  what- 
ever it  might  cost  me,  counting  all  but  as 
dross,  so  that  I  might  win  Christ. 

But  while  engaged  in  the  maintenance  of 
those  blessed  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  for 
which  I  had  been  made  a  sufferer,  my  atten- 
tion was  called  to  subjects  which  had  been 
passed  over,  as  requiring  no  examination.  An 
anxious  inquirer  asked  me,  what  good  reasons, 
or  what  were  the  best  reasons,  which  we  had 
for  laying  aside  the  ordinances  ?  I  give  an 
answer,  which  though  it  did  not  satisfy  the 
inquirer,  put  an  end  to  the  conversation  on 
the  subject. 

My  mind,   however,  was  directed  to  the 
Holy  Scripture,  to  find  some  reasons  in  addi- 
tion to  those  we  had  already  advanced,  in 
support  of  our  peculiar  views.     The  subject 
D  2 


42  bates'  letter. 

of  baptism  first  engaged  my  attention.  But 
my  disappointment  can  scarcely  be  conceived, 
when  instead  of  finding  additional  arguments 
in  favor  of  the  disuse  of  the  ordinances,  I  per- 
ceived that  the  very  passages  on  which  we 
had  relied,  did  not  support  the  conclusions  we 
have  drawn  from  them;  but  on  the  contrary^ 
presented  evidence  of  a  directly  opposite  cha- 
racter. Disappointment  increased  the  ear- 
nestness of  my  research.  I  still  hoped  to  find 
something  which  would  fully  sustain  us.  And 
when  again  and  again,  every  argument  which 
I  could  frame  to  myself,  was  laid  prostrate 
before  the  simple  testimony  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, I  determined  to  suspend  my  decision, 
sought  for  assistance  and  right  direction  in 
prayer,  and  returned  again  to  the  examina- 
tion of  the  subject. 

More  than  twelve  months  elapsed  before  I 
gave  up  the  hope  of  finding  sufficient  evidence 
in  Scripture,  for  believing  that  we  had  been 
right  in  laying  those  practices  aside. 

But  when  at  last,  the  conviction  was  forced 
upon  me,  that  our  predecessors  were  not  war- 
ranted in  the  disuse  of  baptism  and  the  supper, 
the  difficulties  in  which  they  had  placed  us, 
by  so  doing,  came  fully  into  view.  How  to 
recover  what  they  had  thus  abandoned,  was. 
and  is,  attended  with  difficulties,  which  can 
be  fully  realized,  only  after  the  mind  is  con- 
vinced upon  the  primary  question. 

I  need  not  notice  those  difficulties  in  detaiU 


BATES*    LETTER.  43 

on  the  present  occasion.  But  it  is  proper  to 
remark,  that  my  mind  was  turned  to  the  Lord, 
in  frequent  and  fervent  prayer  for  right  direc- 
tion. Few,  if  any,  of  my  most  intimate  friends, 
knew  the  process  through  which  my  mind  was 
led.  For  as  I  was  not,  and  could  not  be,  pre- 
pared, publicly  to  promulgate  the  doctrine, 
until  I  was  enabled  to  meet  it  in  a  practical 
way,  I  found  it  to  be  my  place,  rather  to  seek 
knowledge  for  myself  on  these  subjects,  than 
to  undertake  to  communicate  it  to  others. 
Sometimes,  however,  the  question  arose  in 
conversation,  in  a  way  that  did  not  allow  me 
to  turn  aside  from  the  expression  of  my  own 
judgment,  so  far  as  it  had  been  formed. 

But  being  fully  convinced,  in  regard  to  the 
abstract  question,  I  was  bound  to  seek  for  the 
wisdom  which  is  from  above,  to  direct  me  in 
regard  to  the  practical  difficulties  which  arise 
from  our  peculiar  position.  These  difficulties 
were  at  length  removed,  but  not  till  the  time 
of  my  last  visit  to  London.  My  conclusions 
were  not  the  result  of  personal  influence,  from 
any  quarter  whatever,  but  of  the  full  convic- 
tions of  my  own  mind. 

After  several  interviews  with  Dr.  J.  Pye 
Smith,  I  was  baptized  by  him,  at  his  own 
house,  at  Homerton,  on  the  15th  inst.  A  few 
Christian  friends  were  present. — But  though 
I  preferred  to  pursue  a  very  simple  course,  in 
accordance  with  some  of  those  deeply  interest- 
ing examples,  which  are  recorded  of  primitive 


44  bates'  letter. 

believers,  I  never  wished  the  transaction  itself 
to  be  regarded,  in  any  degree,  in  the  charac- 
ter of  a  secret.  I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  pro- 
fession I  have  made  of  faith  in  our  Lord  and 
Saviour,  nor  of  the  manner  in  which  that 
profession  was  made.  I  rest  on  the  authority 
of  the  commandment  of  our  risen  and  adorable 
Redeemer,  and  the  example  of  the  believers 
in  the  purest  age  of  the  church.  And  while  I 
most  tenderly  sympathize  with  my  beloved 
friends,  who  may  have  been  alarmed  or  pained 
at  hearing  of  the  step  which  I  have  taken,  I 
do  sincerely  rejoice,  in  that  sense  of  the  love, 
and  of  the  providence  of  God,  which  has  been 
given  me. 

And  now,  in  the  feeling  of  brotherly  regard, 
I  will  endeavor  to  remove  from  your  minds, 
every  painful  impression  which  3'^ou  may 
have  received  on  the  occasion. 

And,  in  the  first  place,  I  will. remark,  that 
being  baptized,  in  conformity  with  the  com- 
mand of  Christ,  and  the  example  of  the 
apostles  and  primitive  believers,  [  did  not  in- 
tend to  abandon  the  Society  of  Friends  ;  it 
being  distinctly  understood,  that  it  was  not 
an  initiation  into  the  particular  society  of 
which  Dr.  Pye  Smith  is  a  pastor.  I  shall 
leave  it  to  my  friends,  in  their  official  capa- 
city, to  say  whether  to  walk  as  we  have  the 
apostles  for  an  ensample  (see  Phil.  iii.  17,)  be 
totally  inadmissible  in  our  society  or  not. 

In  disposing  of  this  question,  let  it  be  re- 


43 

membered,  that  there  is  not,  and  so  far  as  my 
information  extends,  there  never  was,  any 
rule  of  discipline  toucliing  the  question.  How 
then  can  you  undertake  to  censure  an  indivi- 
dual, as  having  violated  the  discipline — in  a 
case  in  which  there  is  no  discipline  at  all  ?  If 
you  think  the  discipline  ought  to  prohibit 
those  things,  which  the  apostles  commanded 
and  practised,  in  the  name  of  their  divine 
Master — must  you  not  have  such  a  rule  of 
discipline  formed — and  not  leave  it  to  indivi- 
duals, to  act  in  their  own  discretion,  in  such 
momentous  cases  1  But  in  making  such  a 
rule,  as  it  would  be  taking  ground  which 
never  has  been  taken,  you  should  seriously 
consider  both  the  consequences  of  the  mea- 
sure and  the  authority  on  which  you  proceed. 
As  to  the  doctrinal  writings  of  the  society, 
we  know^  that  they  are  not  discipline.  If  they 
are  to  be  regarded  in  that  point  of  view,  they 
must  be  taken  so,  in  all  their  parts.  But  who 
would  now  be  willing  to  be  bound  by  all  that 
early  Friends  have  written  on  subjects  of 
doctrine?  There  are  declarations  in  their 
writings,  and  those  not  a  few,  which  no  pious 
Christian  could  adopt,  in  the  common  and 
obvious  sense  of  the  language.  If  they  in- 
tended these  writings  to  be  taken  as  of  abso- 
lute authority,  no  one  could  safely  dare  to 
accede  to  such  an  idea.  If  they  did  not,  the 
advocates  for  their  writings,  cannot  fairly 
draw  from  them  such  an  inference. 


46  bates'  letter. 

The  last  Yearly  Meeting  in  London  de- 
clared, in  the  document  which  it  embodied  in 
the  general  epistle,  that  "  the  Holy  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  were  given 
by  inspiration  of  God ;  that  therefore  the  de- 
clarations contained  in  them  rest  on  the  au- 
thority of  God  himself;  and  there  can  be  no 
appeal  from  them  to  any  other  authority 
whatever ;"  and  "  that  no  doctrine  which  is 
not  contained  in  them  can  be  required  of  any 
one  to  be  believed,  as  an  article  of  faith. ^' 

Now,  if  these  declarations  were  really  in- 
tended to  be  carried  out  in  practice,  how  can 
you,  on  questions  of  doctrine,  appeal  to  any 
other  authority  than  the  Holy  Scriptures? 
And  I  ask  you,  my  friends,  where  will  you 
find,  in  all  the  Scriptures,  that  baptism,  or 
the  supper,  as  these  were  taught  and  prac- 
tised by  the  Apostles^  are  unlawful^  or 
afford  just  cause  for  church  censure?  If  this 
be  not  in  Scripture,  how  can  you  require  it 
to  be  believed,  as  an  article  of  faith? 

But  1  do  not  intend  to  place  this  subject 
merely  on  negative  ground.  For  as  every 
religious  body,  and  every  particular  member 
of  it,  is  solemnly  bound  to  correct  all  errors, 
reform  all  abuses,  and  obey  from  the  heart 
that  form  of  doctrine  which  has  been  deliver- 
ed us  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  I  ask  you,  not 
merely  for  my  sake,  but  for  your  own,  calmly 
and  dispassionately  to  review  the  whole 
ground,  and  search  the  Scriptures  to  see 
whether  these  things  are  so. 


BATES*    LETTER.  47 

That  our  Lord,  during  his  personal  minis- 
try, did  authorize  a  baptism,  by  which  his 
disciples  were  recognized,  and  by  which  they 
made  profession  of  discipleship  to  him,  is 
clearly  proved  by  the  3d  and  4th  chapters  of 
John.  That  this  baptism,  whatever  might 
have  been  the  form  of  it,  or  the  manner  in 
which  it  was  administered,  could  not  have 
been  identical  with  that  of  John,  is  proved  by 
the  fact  that  there  was  a  distinction  plainly 
expressed  between  them,  and  also  between 
the  disciples  of  John  and  those  of  Jesus. 

I  wish  it  to  be  remembered,  that  baptism^ 
simply  taken,  and  without  something  in  the 
context  to  change  its  obvious  sense,  does 
mean  an  outward  and  visible  act.  The  ap- 
plication of  the  term,  both  to  sufferings  and 
to  the  affusion  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  figurative. 

I  state  it  also,  as  an  undeniable  fact,  that 
the  baptism  embraced  in  the  commission  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  after  his  resurrection, 
was  not  identical  with  the  baptism  of  John, 
nor  with  any  of  the  washings  which  had  been 
practised  by  the  Jews,  nor  with  any  other 
baptism  which  had  preceded  it.  There  is  no 
evidence  whatever,  that  a  baptism  "in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  had  ever  been  instituted  before. 
It  was  now,  after  the  resurrection  of  the 
adorable  Saviour,  when  he  declared,  "  all 
power  is  given  unto  me,  both  in  heaven  and 
in  earth" — that  he  gave  this  charge  to  his 


48  bates'  letter. 

disciples,  "  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy- 
Ghost,  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commans^ed  you :  and  lo ! 
I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of 
the  world.  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved :  but  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned."  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20: 
Mark  xvi.  16. 

As  this  was  neither  the  baptism  of  John, 
nor  any  ritual  of  the  Jews,  so  it  is  evident 
there  could  be  no  prejudices  in  favor  of  it. 

We  cannot  suppose  that  our  risen  Lord  in- 
tended to  adapt  either  the  preaching  of  the 
Gospel,  or  the  initiation  of  the  believers  into 
the  church,  to  the  prejudices  of  the  ignorant 
or  vicious.  He  did  not  intend  to  let  down  the 
doctrines  and  practices  embraced  in  the  com- 
mission just  recited — that  by  making  some 
concessions  to  unregenerate  men,  they  might 
be  the  more  ready  to  receive  the  other  parts 
of  his  doctrines.  If  we  could  for  a  moment 
imagine  such  an  accommodation  of  the 
gospel,  we  should  look  for  it,  in  the  doc- 
trines :  because  these  were  to  precede  the 
initiation  into  the  visible  church.  And  we 
must  perceive  that  where  the  unregenerate 
heart  is  subdued,  and  a  willingness  is  produced 
to  receive  the  kingdom  of  heaven  as  little 
children,  when  the  language  is  uttered,  Lord 
what  wilt  thou  have  me  do  ?  the  humble  be- 


BATES     LETTER.  49 

liever  would  not  presume  to  make  his  own 
terms  in  entering  into  the  visible  church. 

But  apart  from  this  consideration,  we  must 
perceive,  on  impartial  reflection — that  the 
baptism  of  the  3,000  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
of  CorneHus  and  his  household,  and  of  the 
apostle  Paul,  was  under  the  direction  of 
chosen  instruments,  specially  qualified,  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  sent  down  from  heaven — and 
not  in  compliance  with  any  prejudices  on  the 
part  of  the  baptized.  What  prejudices,  for 
example,  could  there  have  been  in  the  mind 
of  the  persecuting  Saul,  in  favor  of  a  baptism, 
which  peculiarly  marked  the  disciples  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,  when  he  was  making  havoc  of 
the  church,  and  when  he  was  pursuing  to  the 
utmost  extremities,  both  men  and  women,  to 
pour  down  his  vengeance  upon  them,  and 
even  compel  them  to  blaspheme  ?  We  can 
readily  suppose  that  the  baptism,  which  re- 
cognized a  faith  he  so  thoroughly  despised — 
could  have  had  in  it  nothing  pleasing  to  his 
mind — but  on  the  contrary,  that  he  would 
have  considered  no  other  act  or  evidence  ne- 
cessary, to  render  an  individual  an  object  of 
his  most  vindictive  hatred,  than  simply  to 
have  received  that  baptism.  No :  he  was 
first  brought  to  be  a  believer  in  the  Lord 
Jesus,  and  in  such  a  manner,  as  to  lay  his 
prepossessions,  as  well  as  his  person,  prostrate 
in  the  dust.  Feeling  himself  in  the  awful 
presence  of  the  glorified  Saviour,  trembling 


60  bates'  letter. 

and  astonished,  he  inquired,  "  Lord  what  wilt 
thou  have  me  to  do?"  He  was  told  to  " arise 
and  go  into  Damascus,  and  there  it  shall  be 
told  thee  of  all  things  which  w^ere  appointed 
for  thee  to  do."  There,  in  the  depth  of  hu- 
miliation, for  three  days,  in  which  he  ate 
nothing — struck  with  blindness,  and  the  chas- 
tening hand  of  God  upon  him — the  promise 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  was  at  length  fulfilled  to 
him.  Ananias,  an  humble  disciple,  was  spe- 
cially sent,  with  immediate  and  extraordinary 
instructions  from  the  Lord,  to  tell  him  what 
was  appointed  for  him  to  do.  And  by  this 
messenger,  the  contrite,  broken  hearted  Saul, 
was  directed  to  be  baptized ;  and  actually 
was  baptized. 

I  cannot  imagine  a  case  more  completely 
excluding  all  idea  of  the  Jewish  prejudices 
and  prepossessions  in  favor  of  baptism  than 
this.  But  this  is  not  all.  For  the  evidence  of 
divine  authority  in  the  transaction  is  undeni- 
able, and  the  apostle  Paul  himself,  but  a  few 
days  before  his  death,  particularly  mentions 
this  circumstance,  in  giving  an  account  of  his 
conversion,  and  of  the  gracious  dealings  of 
God  with  him. — See  Acts  xxii. 

That  the  apostles  did  understand  the  com- 
mand or  commission  of  our  Lord,  given  after 
his  resurrection,  as  recorded  by  Matthew 
and  Mark,  to  include  baptism,  in  the  plain 
and  obvious  sense  of  the  term,  is  evident  from 
their  practice  under  that  commission. 


bates'  letter.  51 

I  shall  first  endeavor  to  show,  that  they  did 
not  assume  to  themselves  the  power  of  bap- 
tizing with  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  first  argument  that  1  shall  use,  is  the 
total  absence  of  any  claim  whatever  by  the 
Apostles,  to  the  exercise  of  such  a  power. 

And  secondly,  that  there  is  not  such  a  term 
in  the  New  Testament,  or  elsewhere  in  the 
Bible,  as  that  of  a  Baptizing  Ministry.* 

And  thirdly,  that  Teaching  and  Baptizing 
are  not  used  as  meaning  one  and  the  same 
thing — but  on  the  contrary,  they  are  mention- 
ed with  a  decided  and  marked  distinction. 

In  connexion  with  the  first  position  here . 
laid  down,  it  should  be  remembered,  that  to 
baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  spoken  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  of  Him  only  ;  and  is  one  of 
the  undeniable  proofs  of  his  Deity.  It  is 
placed  on  this  very  ground  by  John.  "  I,  in- 
deed, baptize  you  with  water  unto  repent- 
ance; but  He  that  cometh  after  me  is  mightier 
than  I,  whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  bear  : 
HE  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 

*  In  making  this  statement,  I  wish  it  distinctly  under- 
stood, that  correcting  this  unsciipturai  mode  of  expression, 
does  not  at  all  detract  from  the  doctrine  of  the  immediate 
help  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  work  of  the  ministry — nor 
from  the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  carrying  the  doctrines  of 
the  Gospel  to  the  hearts  of  individuals.  I  earnestly  de- 
sire that  these  important  doctrines  may  ever  be  maintained, 
as  they  are  set  forth  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  And  that 
every  departure,  in  these  and  all  other  respects,  from 
Scripture  testimony,  may  be  most  readily  corrected. 


52  bates'  LETTER. 

and  with  fir e.^^  Matt.  iii.  2.  See  Mark,  i. 
7,  8.  Luke,  iii.  16.  And  again.  *'  AndJoha 
bare  record,  saying,  I  saw  the  Spirit  descend- 
ing from  Heaven  like  a  dove,  and  it  abode 
upon  him.  And  I  knew  him  not;  but  he  that 
sent  me  to  baptize  with  water,  the  same  said 
unto  me,  upon  whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit 
descending,  and  remaining  on  him,  the  same 
is  He  which  baptizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 
And  I  saw,  and  bare  record,  that  this  is  the 
Son  ofGodr    John,  i.  32,  33,  34. 

Now  it  is  clear,  that  baptizing  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  is  predicated  of  the  Son  of  God^ 
and  of  Him  only.  But  this  conclusion  is  not 
drawn  from  these  passages  alone.  When 
Peter  explained,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  the 
wonders,  which  then  drew  admiring  crowds 
around  them,  he  said,  "  This  is  that  which  was 
spoken  by  the  prophet  Joel :  And  it  shall  come 
to  pass  in  the  last  days  (saith  God)  that  I  will 
pour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh,"  &c. 
Here  let  it  be  observed  that  it  was  God  that 
should  pour  out  of  his  Spirit.  And,  therefore, 
when  the  inspired  Apostle  applied  this  to  Jesus 
Christ,  saying,  "  Therefore  being  by  the  right 
hand  of  God  exalted,  and  having  received  of 
the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  He 
hath  shed  forth  this  which  ye  now  see  and 
hear," — he  not  only  explained  the  doctrine  of 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  he  bore 
an  undeniable  testimony  to  the  Deity  of  Jesus 
Christ. 


BATES^  LETTER.  53 

The  terms  baptizing  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  with  fire,  occur  in  the  testimony  of  John 
the  Baptist.  And  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  we 
have  the  entire  fulfilment  of  the  prediction; 
when  "  there  appeared  cloven  tongues,  like  as 
oifire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them,  and  thej 
were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  Now 
while  we  may  confidently  affirm  that  this  pre- 
diction was  literally  fulfilled,  even  in  reference 
to  the  fire,  on  that  particular  occasion,  it  will 
be  freely  granted — nay  insisted — that  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  confined 
to  that  occasion.  But  I  shall  insist  also,  that 
it  was  spoken  of  CAr/A-/,  andof  Him  only,  as 
the  baptizer  with  the  Holy  Ghost — because 
the  Holy  Ghost  himself  is  God.  And  as  the 
Prophet  testified  that  it  was  God  who  would 
pour  out  of  his  Spirit,  upon  all  flesh,  so  the 
Apostle  applied  the  prophecy  to  Christ,  that 
He  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted, 
had  shed  forth  what  constituted  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

That  they  did  not  understand  that  they 
were  to  baptize,  by  preaching  the  Gospel, 
or  that  baptism  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  were  one  and  the  same,  is  proved  by 
many  undeniable  facts. 

On  that  wonderful  event,  when  cloven 
tongues  like  as  of  fire,  sat  upon  each  of  the 
disciples,  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Peter  was  certainly  not  less  eminently 
gifted  than  any  of  the  rest,  when  he  was  hon- 
E  2 


54  BATES    LETTER. 

ored  by  the  Head  of  the  Church  to  be  the 
chief  Speaker  on  that  memorable  occasion. 
He  was  then  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
thus  qualified,  he  preached  the  Gospel ;  which 
was  made  effectual  to  the  conversion  of  3000 
souls  that  day.  Now  if  he  had  understood 
this  to  be  baptizing,  he  would  not  have  told 
them  afterwards  to  be  baptized,  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  w^ork  would  have  been 
already  done.  And  if  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  had  been  one  and  the  same  with  that 
efiectual  preaching,  or  had  been  conferred  by 
it,  he  w'ould  not  have  placed  it  apart  from 
the  teaching  they  had  heard,  and  from  the 
baptism  he  had  unhesitatingly  told  them  to 
receive.  The  teaching,  baptizing,  and  gift 
of  the  Spirit,  are  here  all  brought  to  our  no- 
tice, as  clearly  distinguished  from  each  other. 
The  same  thing  is  even  more  strongly  mark- 
ed in  the  conversion  of  the  Samaritans.  There 
they  believed  Philip,  preaching  the  things 
concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ,  and  then  they  were  baptized j. 
both  men  and  women.  Here  ihe  preaching, 
and  the  baptism,  were  evidently  not  one  and 
the  same  thing.  And  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  not  identical  with  either.  For  when 
the  Apostles  heard  that  Samaria  had  received 
the  word  of  God,  (plainly  the  Gospel  message,) 
they  sent  unto  them  Peter  and  John,  who, 
when  they  were  come,  prayed  that  they  might 
receive  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  as  yet  he  was 


55 

fallen  upon  none  ofthem :  only  they  were  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Now 
I  ask  you,  my  friends,  if  these  three  things, 
teaching,  and  baptism,  and  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  could  be  placed  more  distinctly, 
as  not  being  identical,  than  they  are  in  this 
passage  l 

That  baptizing  was  not  to  be  performed 
by  preaching  the  Gospel,  or,  as  we  say,  by  a 
baptizing  ministry,  is  further  proved  by  the 
words  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  who  declared,  that 
Christ  sent  him  not  to  baptize  but  to  preach 
the  Gospel.*    Baptism  then  was  taken  in  its 

*  Will  any  one  presume  to  condemn  the  Apostle  Paul, 
«ither  for  being  baptized  himself,  or  baptizing  others,  or 
sanctioning  it  on  the  broad  scale  ?  Baptizing  being  con- 
dnected  with  teaching,  is  included  in  that  commission 
which  covers  the  whole  ground  of  the  ministry,  in  which 
there  was  a  diversity  of  gifts,  a  difference  of  administra- 
tion, and  a  diversity  of  operation.  That  the  Apostles 
■themselves  did  not  generally  baptize,  but  that  it  was  usu- 
ally performed  by  subordinate  ministers,  appears  from 
the  strong  probability,  that  Peter  did  not  baptize  either 
the  3000  on  the  day  of  Pentecost ;  or  Cornelius  and  his 
household,  whom  he  commanded  to  be  baptized.  Paul 
baptized  a  few — but  he  certainly  sanctioned  the  baptism 
of  the  jailor  and  his  family,  Lydia  and  hers — the  many 
Corinthians  mentioned,  Acts,  xviii.  8;  and  the  12  Ephe- 
sians,  ib.  xix.  5.  It  may  be  further  remarked  that  Crispus, 
the  chief  ruler  of  the  Synagogue,  believed  and  was  baptized 
by  Paul  himself,  at  the  same  time  that  many  of  the  Cor- 
inthians, hearing,  believed,  and  were  baptized.  See  Acts, 
xviii.  8,  comp.  1  Cor.  i.  14,  15,  16.  Thus  while  he  bap- 
tized only  a/ew,  many  were  baptized  by  others.  It  should 
be  remembered  also,  that  Philip,  who  was  a  deacon,  bap- 


56  bates'  letter. 

simple  and  obvious  sense,  and  is  clearly  distin- 
guished by  the  Apostle  from  preaching  the 
Gospel. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  baptism  which 
Peter  commanded  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
which  the  Samaritans  received,  and  which 
was  administered  to  the  twelve  Ephesians; 
(all  which  were  cases  of  baptism  in  the  ob- 
vious sense  of  the  word,)  were  all  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ.  Now  that  we  cannot  con- 
strue the  terms  here,  in  a  mystical  sense,  to 
mean  the  power,  is  evident,  because  the  bap- 
tism itself  was  plainly  an  outward  one.  And 
in  all  these  cases,  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  not  conferred  till  afterwards.  In  the 
case  of  the  Samaritans  it  would  seem  to  have 
been  some  days  after  this  baptism  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus.  That  it  was  not  the ybrm 
of  words  used  in  Baptism,  appears  by  the  com- 
mission of  our  Saviour,  see  Alatt.  xxviii.  19, 
20,  compared  with  Acts,  xix.  2,  3,  "  And  he 
said  unto  them,  have  ye  received  the  Holy 
Ghost  since  ye  believed  ?  And  they  said  unto 
him,  We  have  not  so  much  as  heard  whether 
there  be  any  Holy  Ghost.  And  he  said  unto 
them,  unto  what  then  were  ye  baptized?  and 
they  said,  unto  John's  baptism." 

tized  the  Eunuch  and  the  Samaritans.  The  baptism  of 
Crispus,  and  the  many  Corinthians,  appears  to  have  been 
not  less  than  twextt  years  after  the  crucifixion :  accord- 
ing to  the  chronology  of  the  Bible,  published  by  the  Bible 
Association  of  Friends  of  America. 


bates'  letter.  57 

As  soon  as  they  had  said  they  had  not  heard 
whether  there  were  any  Holy  Ghost,  Paul 
perceived  there  had  been  [a  defect]  in  their 
baptism.  For  if  they  had  been  baptized  ac- 
cording to  the  directions  of  Jesus  Christ,  they 
must  have  recognized  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  well 
as  the  Father  and  the  Son. 

The  fact,  then,  is,  by  their  being  baptized 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  we  are  to 
understand  that  it  was  not  only  into  disciple- 
ship  to  him,  but  by  his  authority — as  when 
an  individual  is  commissioned  to  transact  any 
business  for  another — it  is  properly  said  to  be 
done  in  the  name  of  him  who  gave  such  au- 
thority. This  single  form  of  expression,  taken 
in  this  sense,  which  it  necessarily  must  be, 
establishes  this  outward,  initiatory  baptism  to 
be  absolutely  of  divine  authority — adminis- 
tered by  the  special  direction  and  command- 
ment of  Jesus  Christ. 

But  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  remark,  that  if 
any,  from  habits  of  thinking  or  otherwise, 
cannot  at  once  relinquish  the  idea,  (erroneous 
as  it  is,)  that  the  name  here  means  the/;otd^er, 
it  will  not  in  the  least  avert  the  force  of  the 
conclusion,  because  it  would  assume  that  this 
outward  baptism,  was  administered  in  the 
power  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  which  would  pre- 
clude all  idea  of  its  being  unauthorized  by  him. 

The  case  of  Cornelius  and  his  household, 
whom  Peter,  specially  sent  and  qualified  for 
the  work  as  he  was,  commanded  to  be  bap- 


lized,  shows  that  even  those  who  liad  receiv- 
ed the  Holy  Ghost,  and  spiritual  gifts,  and  had 
spoken  in  the  exercise  of  those  gifts,  were 
commanded  to  receive  this  ordinance. 

The  baptism  of  the  Eunuch  shows  not  only 
that  it  was  the  mode  of  acknowledging  the 
admission  of  believers  into  the  fellowship  of  the 
Church,  but  that  it  was  administered  with 
great  care,  that  the  initiated  person  should  be 
a  fit  subject,  that  is  a  believer  with  all  the 
heart. 

The  case  of  the  twelve  Ephesians  shows, 
that  no  other  than  the  one  Christian  baptism, 
which  Christ  had  commanded,  and  which  was 
constantly  recognized  as  being  administered 
in  his  name  or  by  his  authority,  would  do  for 
the  initiation  of  disciples  into  the  visible 
Church. 

The  reader  will  please  to  take  notice,  that 
this  case  of  administering  Christian  baptism, 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  to  persons 
who  had  received  another  baptism,  occurred 
at  Ephesus:  and  about  the  year  57.  The 
Apostle  Paul  remained  in  that  vicinity  about 
three  years,  and  then  after  a  short  visit  to 
some  neighboring  places,  he  sent  for  the 
elders  of  this  very  Church,  where  this  exam- 
ple had  been  set  of  the  Apostle's  care  in  re- 
gard to  the  one  initiatory  baptism.  To  these 
ciders  he  appealed,  as  knowing  how  he  had 
been  among  them  "  from  the  first  day"  he  had 
been  in  Asia,  including  the   time  of  this  re- 


59 

markable  transaction,  that  he  had  kept  back 
nothing  that  was  profitable  unto  them — that 
he  had  not  shunned  to  declare  unto  them  the 
whole  counsel  of  God — and  then  impressively 
admonished  them  to  remember  that  by  the 
space  of  three  years  he  ceased  not  to  warn 
every  one  night  and  day  with  tears. 

Not  the  least  intimation  is  given  of  any 
change  of  view  which  the  Apostle  had  come 
to  during  this  period,  but  directly  to  the  con- 
trary, he  recognizes  the  whole  course  of  Chris- 
tian instruction  which  he  had  given,  from  the 
first  day  he  came  among  them  till  then. 

These  facts  very  forcibly  illustrate  that  pas- 
sage in  the  4th  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  this 
very  Church,  in  which  he  says:  "There  is 
one  body  and  one  spirit,  even  as  ye  are  called 
in  one  hope  of  your  calling:  one  Lord:  one 
faith :  one  baptism :  one  God  and  Father  of 
all,  who  is  above  all, through  all,  and  in  you  all." 

With  such  on  example  as  he  had  set  before 
their  eyes,  in  causing  the  twelve  who  had  re- 
ceived John's  baptism,  to  receive  the  one  in- 
itiatory baptism  appointed  by  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  constantly  recognized  as  being  adminis- 
tered in  his  name,  this  passage  in  the  Epistle 
must  have  been  very  forcible — used  as  it  was, 
to  show  the  close  and  intimate  relation  in 
which  they  stood  to  each  other,  and  to  ad- 
monish them  to  labor  to  keep  the  unity  of 
the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace. 

The   first  chapter    of    1   Corinthians   has 


60  bates'  letttr. 

a  strong  bearing  on  this  part  of  the  subject. 
There  they  were  in  danger  of  division,  from 
party  preferences  to  favorite  ministers  of  the 
Gospel.  Some  were  for  Paul,  some  for  A  polios, 
some  for  Cephas,  &c.  Against  these  divisions 
he  very  strongly  reasoned  and  admonished 
them.  "  Is  Christ  divided  ?"  said  he  ;  "  was 
Paul  crucified  for  you  ?  or,  were  ye  baptized 
in  the  name  of  Paul?'  Here  their  having 
been  baptized  in  this  one  Christian  baptism, 
in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  or  into  disciple- 
ship  to  him,  and  by  his  commandment,  is  used 
as  an  argument  against  division  and  contention. 
It  was  on  this  very  ground  that  the  argu- 
ment derived  from  their  baptism,  was  advanc- 
ed ;  and  it  was  for  this  cause  that  he  thanked 
God  he  had  baptized  so  few,  lest  it  should  be 
said  he  had  baptized  in  his  own  name,  and 
thus  the  idea  oi  another  baptism  be  introdu- 
ced, and  with  it  the  most  dangerous  conse- 
quences. 

In  addition  to  these  reasons  for  the  meaning 
of  the  passage  in  Ephesians  iv.  it  may  be  ob- 
served that  that  passage  cannot  be  construed 
to  apply  to  the  Holy  Spirit;  because  when  bap- 
tism is  mentioned  without  something  in  the 
context,  to  give  it  a  different  sense,  its  com- 
mon and  obvious  meaning  is  to  be  taken.  And 
there  is  nothing  in  the  context  to  turn  it  from 
that  meaning.  It  cannot  be  taken  in  that  con- 
strained sense,  as  applied  to  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  denying  the  existence  of  any  other,  be- 


bates'  letter.  61 

cause  it  would  not,  in  that  sense,  be  true ;  for 
the  outward  baptism  of  the  believers  was  then 
in  practice,  as  had  been  demonstrated  before 
the  eyes  of  these  very  persons  to  whom  this 
Epistle  was  written.  And  sufferings,  to  which 
our  Lord  figuratively  applied  the  term,  were 
still  to  be  endured. 

The  meaning  which  Friends  have  attached 
to  the  expressions  of  the  Apostle,  in  thanking 
God  that  he  had  baptized  only  Crispus,  and 
Gains,  and  the  household  of  Stephanus,  is 
totally  unwarranted  by  the  text.  From  the 
passage  before  us,  as  well  as  from  Acts,  xviii. 
8,  it  is  perfectly  evident,  that  the  Corinthians 
had,  like  other  believers,  been  received  into  the 
Church  by  baptism.  And  the  discontinuance 
of  the  practice  was  not  at  all  under  considera- 
tion. On  the  contrary,  he  draws  an  argu- 
ment from  that  mode  of  initiation,  against  the 
divisions  to  which  they  were  inclined.  And 
his  thanking  God  that  he  had  baptized  only 
those  whom  he  named,  was  not  to  convey  the 
idea,  that  the  practice  of  the  Churchy  which 
had  then  lasted  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury, should  be  changed :  but  that  it  should 
NQT  be  changed.  His  meaning  is  explicit, 
*^  Lest  any  should  say,  that  I  had  baptized  in 
my  own  name,''^  and  thus  introduce  another 
baptism.  And  I  feel  bound  to  confess,  for  my- 
self, and  to  say  for  others,  that  we  ought  not 
to  have  set  aside  the  meaning  wliich  the  Apos- 
tle sa  clearly  declared  himself,  nor  have  im- 


62  BATKS'  LETTER. 

posed  upon  the  passage  one  so  very  different, 
which  the  inspired  writer  did  not  express. 

In  the  12th  chapter  of  the  same  Epistle,  the 
Apostle  writes  to  them  "concerning  spiritual 
gifts."  Not  the  least  idea  is  suggested  here, 
any  more  than  in  the  first  chapter,  of  unset- 
tling the  long  continued  order  of  the  Church, 
in  receiving  persons  into  visible  connexion 
with  it.  This  was  a  subject  not  brought  into 
question. — The  doctrine  immediately  under 
the  notice  of  the  Apostle,  was,  "  the  diversity 
of  gifts"  and  the  source  from  which  they 
were  derived,  and  with  all  this  diversity,  the 
gift  of  the  one  Spirit,  which  was  the  privilege 
of  all  true  believers.  After  enumerating 
various  gifts,  but  all  by  the  same  Spirit ;  and 
testifying  that  "a  manifestation  of  the  Spirit 
is  given  to  every  man  to  profit  withal,"  he 
says :  "  But  all  these  worketh  that  one  and  the 
selfsame  Spirit,  dividing  to  every  man  seve- 
rally as  he  will.  For  as  the  bod}^  is  one,  and 
hath  many  members,  and  all  the  members  of 
that  one  body,  being  many,  are  one  body  ;  so 
also  is  Christ.  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all 
baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews 
or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free ;  and 
have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit." 
— 1  Cor.  xii.  11,  12,  13. 

As  in  the  first  chapter  he  had  admonished 
them  against  divisions,  and  used  the  Baptism 
they  had  received,  as  an  argument  against 
their  party  distinctions,  so  now  he  refers  to 


bates'  letter.  63 

the  One  Spirit,  as  giving  vitality  to  every 
part  of  the  body,  composed  of  many  nnembers, 
each  having  its  appropiate  place  and  each  re- 
spectively helpful  to  the  whole.  Pie  shows 
that  there  was  to  be,  not  only  an  outward  and 
visible  union  of  the  members  of  the  Church, 
but  such  a  spiritual  relation  that  if  one  mem- 
ber suffer,  all  the  members  suffer  with  it :  and 
if  one  member  be  honored,  all  the  members 
rejoice  with  it.  And  if,  by  showing  that  the 
various  gifts  which  he  enumerated,  were  by 
the  same  Spirit,  he  did  not  set  aside  the  formal 
acknowledgment  of  those  gifts  by  the  Church, 
which  it  is  evident  he  did  not ;  much  less  did 
he,  in  declaring  that  by  one  Spirit  they  were 
all  Baptized  into  one  body,  change  or  set  aside 
that  Baptism,  by  which  persons  had  been  ad- 
mitted into  visible  connexion  with  the  Church, 
and  which  had  been  administered  in  the  name 
or  authority  of  the  Lord  Jesus  from  the  day 
of  Pentecost  till  then. 

But  taken  in  its  common  and  strictly  proper 
meaning,  as  the  mode  of  initiation  of  believ- 
ers into  the  Church  which  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  appointed  after  his  resurrection,  and 
which  the  Apostles  commanded  and  the  be- 
lievers received  in  his  name  and  there  was 
but  the  one. 

And,  however,  the  circumstances  of  the  be- 
lievers might  be  varied,  or  however  widely 
they  might  be  separated,  whether  Jews  or 
Gentiles,    there   was  but  one   body  and  one 


C)4  bates'  letter.. 

Spirit,  even  as  they  were  called  in  one  hope 
of  their  calling,  one  Lord,  one  Faith,  one  (ini- 
tiatory) Baptism,  one  God  and  Father  in  all, 
who  is  above  all,  through  all,  and  in  all. 

That  our  arguments  for  the  disuse  of  bap- 
tism and  the  supper  are  unfounded,  is  proved 
by  the  fact,  that  while  the  use  of  these  ordi- 
nances was  undoubtedly  commanded  and  prac- 
tised by  the  Apostles  and  are  carefully  record- 
ed by  divine  authority,  there  is  no  evidence  on 
record,  that  they  ever  were  laid  aside  during 
the  Apostolic  age.  And  as  the  Scriptures 
show  these  things  in  the  established  order  of 
th«  Churches,  superintended  as  they  ever 
were  by  the  Apostles,  so  Ecclesiastical  History 
finds  them  in  the  Church,  and  traces  them 
down  to  modern  times,  though  greatly  pervert- 
ed and  abused  in  some  instances. 

However  our  predecessors  might  have  been 
influenced  by  these  abuses,  to  lay  the  ordi- 
nances aside,  that  measure  was  wholly  unwar- 
ranted by  the  Holy  Scriptures.  They  should 
have  avoided  abuses,  and  not  abandoned  the 
institutions  of  Jesus  Christ  "  and  the  command- 
ments of  the  Apostles  of  the  Lord  and  Sa- 
viour." 

The  idea  that  the  Apostles  themselves  were 
under  Judaical  prejudices,  in  commanding  and 
practising  these  things,  has  had  a  very  mis- 
chievous affect. 

To  assume  such  a  position,  in  reference  to 
their  government  of  the  Churches,  endued  for 


tJATEs'    LETTER.  65 

that  oflice,  as  they  were,  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
sent  down  from  heaven,  is  highly  objectionable, 
and  if  carried  out,  must  totally  lay  waste  the 
authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  For  if  they 
were  mistaken  while  preaching,  why  not  as 
liable  to  be  mistaken  while  writing  ?  And 
if  so,  are  we  not  brought  to  the  result,  of  taking 
just  so  much  of  their  doctrines  as  we  please  ? 
Now  that  this  objection  does  go  to  their  wri- 
tings, as  well  as  their  oral  discourses,  is  evi 
dent,  because  we  know  nothing  of  their  oral 
teaching,  but  by  what  is  written,  so  that  the 
uncertainly  would  fall  directly  and  at  once 
upon  Scripture. 

The  notion  that  we  or  our  predecessors, 
have  had  clearer  views  than  the  Apostles,  is 
highly  presumptuous,  and  always  fraught  with 
incalculable  danger.  And  of  that  danger  we 
have  had  among  ourselves  the  most  humilia- 
ting evidences. 

The  practical  effects  of  laying  aside  the  or- 
dinances have  been  of  a  very  injurious  cha- 
racter, and  intimately  connected  with  defec- 
tion on  fundamental  points  of  doctrine.  I 
shall  briefly  mention  a  few  of  these  effects. 

Besides  the  general  tendency  to  weaken 
our  sense  of  the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture, 
the  disuse  of  Baptism,  has  thrown  us  more  into 
the  condition  of  a  social  compact  than  of  a 
Church.  The  Apostolic  Church  was  composed 
of  Believers.  This  is  the  term  by  which  the 
members  were  of  it  were  designated.  Faith 
f2 


66  bates'  letter, 

was  essential  to  this  privilege ;  and  they  in- 
dividually made  profession  of  it  by  baptism. 
And  those  who  administered  this  initiatory  or- 
dinance in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  exer- 
cised a  care  that  the  persons  so  joined  to  the 
body  should  be  Jit  subjects,  that  is  believers. 
Those  also  who  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
who  under  his  constraining  power,  had  mag- 
nified God  (see  Acts  x.  44  to  the  end,)  were 
not  exempted  from  this  general  regulation, 
which  rested  upon  the  command  of  Christ.  It 
meets  us  at  the  very  formation  of  the  Church 
as  respects  the  individuals  by  whom  it  was 
successively  composed. 

We  have  abandoned  all  this,  on  the  profes- 
sian  of  more  pure  and  spiritual  views.  And 
our  Society  is  made  up  in  a  totally  different 
manner.  Is  it  then  any  cause  of  admiration, 
that  when  the  great  doctrines  of  the  Gospel 
which  originally  were  recognized  on  the  initia- 
tion of  believers  into  the  Church,  are  brought 
into  discussion,  so  many  of  our  members  should 
be  found  unprepared  to  acknowledge  them? 

In  reference  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  which 
was  the  memorial  of  the  dying  Saviour's  love, 
the  laying  of  that  ordinance  aside  has  been 
not  less  injurious  than  the  rejection  of  baptism. 

The  practice  of  the  Christian  Church,  in 
both  these  cases  under  the  immediate  care  of 
the  Apostles,  I  believe  "was  of  divine  authority, 
and  therefore,  should  not  have  been  abandon- 
ed by  us. 


BATES^    LETTER.  '67 

We  ought  not  to  forget  the  time  or  the  cir- 
cumstances, which  marked  the  Last  Supper 
that  was  eaten  by  our  Lord,  with  his  disciples. 
It  was  at  the  very  juncture  when  he  was 
about  to  be  offered  on  the  cross,  a  sacrifice 
for  our  sins.  A  recurrence  to  that  time,  ani 
to  those  events,  should  ever  produce  an  hum- 
bling effect  upon  our  hearts.  That  he  intended 
to  recall  the  minds  of  his  disciples  to  these 
things,  after  they  had  taken  place,  by  the  useof 
lively  symbols  of  his  body  that  was  broken,  and 
of  his  blood  that  was  shed  for  them,  is  shown  by 
the  language  which  he  employed.  "  And  he 
took  bread,  and  gave  thanks,  and  brake  it,  and 
gave  unto  them  saying.  This  is  my  body,  which 
isgiven  for  you  :  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me. 
Likewise,  also,  the  cup  of  supper,  saying,  This 
cup  is  the  New  Testament  in  my  blood  which 
is  shed  for  you."  The  reverential  remem- 
brance of  his  Love,  and  what  he  has  done  for 
us,  and  his  gracious  designs  in  it,  is  connected 
with  the  highest  obligations  that  can  rest  upon 
intelligent  creatures.  He  who  knew  what 
was  in  man  and  how  to  help  us,  in  the  midst 
of  our  manifold  infirmities,  was  pleased  to  take 
hold  of  this  communion  with  him,  the  same 
night  in  which  he  was  betrayed ;  and  to  say 
"  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me. " 

The  passover,  which  was  instituted  on  the 
deliverance  of  the  children  of  Israel  from 
Egyptian  bondage,  prefigured  the  death  of 


08  bates'  letteh. 

Christ.  His  crucifixion  being  at  the  time  of 
that  feast,  more  strongly  marks  the  applica- 
tion of  it  to  him.  And  the  awful  consequen- 
ces denounced  against  those  who  should  neg- 
lect to  sprinkle  the  blood  of  the  Pascal  Lamb 
on  their  dwellings,  is  a  most  solemn  admoni- 
tion of  the  necessity  of  the  sprinkling  of  the 
Blood  of  Christ  on  our  hearts  by  Faith. 

But  the  Lord's  Supper  differs  essentially 
from  the  Passover  in  several  important  particu- 
lars. It  is  connected  historically,  not  with  the 
deliverance  of  the  Israelites  from  bondage, 
but  with  the  last  supper  which  our  Redeemer 
took  with  his  disciples  immediately  before  his 
death,  for  their  and  our  sakes.  The  Pass- 
over pointed  beforehand,  obscurely  to  Christ 
who  was  to  come ;  without  explaining  who 
he  ivaSy  or  when  we  would  come.  The  sup- 
per was  to  bring  to  remembrance  (of  course 
in  after  time)  both  the  Lord  Jesus  himself  y;er- 
sonally,  and  his  death,  and  the  shedding  of 
his  bloody  upon  the  cross,  as  a  sacrifice  for  our 
sins;  aiid  to  remind  us  by  the  figure  of  eat- 
ing and  drinking  (which  are  the  natural 
means  of  sustaining  life)  the  immediate  rela- 
tion which  the  very  body  and  blood  of  our 
crucified  Saviour,  has  to  our  spiritual  life,  sup- 
port and  sustance. 

That  He  who  "  is  Lord  of  all,"  who  is  given 
to  be  "  Head  over  all  things  to  the  Church," 
whom  all  the  angels  of  God  are  commanded 
to  worship,  had  power  over  the  whole  laws  to 


dates'  letter.  69 

retain  or  to  abrogate  whatever  part  He  pleased, 
no  one  can  dare  to  deny.  But  that  the  hap- 
tism  which  he  commanded  after  his  resiir- 
7'ection^  and  the  Supper  which  he  instituted 
immediately  before  his  death, — as  those  or- 
-dinances  were  understood  and  maintained  by 
the  Apostles,  were  not  mere  fragments  of  the 
ceremonial  law,  is  proved  by  the  v^ry  institu- 
tions themselves,  the  times  at  which  they 
were  commanded,  and  the  objects  which  they 
commemorated. 

The  Apostle  Paul,  in  his  first  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  (which  was  written  about  the  year 
59,)  so  far  from  laying  this  practice  aside, 
places  it  in  the  strongest  point  of  view.  He 
plainly  calls  it  "  the  Lord's  Supper,"  and  says, 
"  For  I  have  received  of  the  Lord  that  which 
also  I  delivered  unto  you.  That  the  Lord  Jesus, 
the  same  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed, 
took  bread :  And  when  he  had  given  thanks, 
he  brake  it,  and  said,  Take,  eat;  this  is  my 
body,  which  is  broken  for  you :  this  do,  in  re- 
membrance of  me.  After  the  same  manner, 
also,  he  took  the  cup,  when  he  had  supped, 
saying,  This  cup  is  the  New  Testament  of  my 
blood :  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  re- 
membrance of  me.  For  as  often  as  ye  eat 
•this  bread,  and  drink  thi^  cup,  ye  do  show  the 
Lord's  death  till  he  come.  Wherefore,  who- 
soever shall  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup 
of  the  Lord,  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  the  Lord-     But  let  a  man 


70  BATLS'  Lb:TTER. 

examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that 
bread  and  drink  of  that  cup.  For  he  that 
cateth  and  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and 
drinketh  damnation  to  himself,  not  discerning 
the  Lord's  body.  1  Cor.  xv.  '^3  to  29.  He 
had,  in  the  preceding  chapter,  said  :  "  The  cup 
of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  com- 
munion of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  the  bread  which 
■we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body 
of  Christ?"  And  to  show  the  near  relation  in 
which  they  stood  to  each  other,  he  proceeds: 
"  For  we  being  many,  are  one  bread,  and  one 
body ;  for  we  are  all  partakers  of  that  one 
bread."  And  then  he  proceeds:  *' Behold 
Israel  after  the  flesh ;  are  not  they  which  eat 
of  the  sacrifices  partakers  of  the  altar  ?  What 
say  I  then  ?  that  the  idol  is  any  thing  1  or  that 
which  is  offered  in  sacrifice  to  idols  is  any 
thing?  But  I  say  that  the  things  which  the 
Gentiles  sacrifice,  they  sacrifice  to  devils,  and 
not  to  God :  and  I  would  not  that  ye  should 
have  fellowship  with  devils.  Ye  cannot  drink 
the  cup  of  the  Lord,  and  the  cup  of  devils." 
1  Cor.  X.  IG  to  2L 

Let  it  be  considered,  that  iweiitysixyenvs 
after  the  Supper  was  instituted  by  our  Lord, 
the  Apostle  brings  it  in  this  impressive  man- 
ner into  notice.  Being  himself,  at  the  time  of 
its  institution,  not  even  a  disciple,  but  after- 
wards converted  to  the  Christian  faith,  and 
made  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles — as  one  that 
was  born  out  of  due  time,  he  was  permitted 


bates'  lb:tter.  71 

to  sec  the  Lord — to  receive  the  doctrines  of 
the  Gospel  by  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ:  and 
from  him  also  he  received  this  institution  of 
the  Supper,  which  he  had  delivered  to  the 
Corinthians. 

The  manner  in  which  it  is  treated,  the  per- 
sons to  whom  it  is  addressed,  and  the  time  at 
which  the  Epistle  was  written,  all  combine  to 
prove  conclusively,  that  it  was  an  institution 
of  Jesus  Christ — that  afterwards  it  was  com- 
municated to  the  Apostle  by  the  Lord  himself, 
to  be  delivered  to  tlie  Gentile  believers,  and 
was  in  use  among  them  when  the  Epistle  was 
written:  and  tinally,  that  as  oft  as  the  be- 
lievers eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup,  they 
do  show  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come. 

The  terms  "  till  he  come,"  have  received 
a  forced  construction,  to  favor  the  laying  aside 
of  this  memorial  of  the  Lord's  death.  Instead 
of  taking  these  terms  to  have  a  meaning  as 
decided lyyw/?^7'e,  now,  as  it  was  when  address- 
ed to  the  Corinthians,  the  idea  has  been  enter- 
tained, that  it  has  been  fulfilled,  and  of  course 
that  the  memorial  is  no  longer  to  be  observed. 

Now  it  is  very  certain,  that  the  argument 
will  amount  to  nothing,  unless  it  can  be  proved 
that  he  has  noio  come,  in  a  sense  in  which  he 
had  not  come,  when  the  Epistle  to  the  Cor- 
inthians was  written.  For  if  the  coming  of 
the  Lord,  spoken  of  by  the  Apostle,  is,  future 
now,  as  it  was  then,  the  end  of  its  observance, 
mentioned  by  him,  has  not  yet  arrived.   What, 


72  bates'  letter. 

then,  I  ask,  is  that  coming  of  the  Lord,  which 
we  have  supposed  lias  put  an  end  to  this  ordi- 
Hance?  Without  pretending  to  answer  for 
others,  I  can  only  say  for  myself,  that  I  for- 
merly considered  it  as  pointing  to  the  intro- 
ductron  of  the  Spirituality  of  the  Gospel.  But 
I  have  long  been  fully  satisfied  that  this  is  not 
the  meaning  of  the  terms. 

On  this  point,  however,  the  argument  cannot 
"be  sustained.  Because  it  may  be  confidently 
said,  that  the  Spirituality  of  the  Gospel  never 
has  been  enjoyed  in  the  Church  since  the 
^ays  of  the  Apostles,  in  a  more  eminent  degree 
than  it  was  during  the  first  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury after  the  day  of  Pentecost.  And,  there- 
fore, as  it  was  after  this  period  pressed  upon 
**'the  Church  of  God  which  (was)  at  Corinth,. 
to  them,  that  are  sanctijied  in  Christ  Jesus, 
called  to  be  Saints,  with  all  that  in  every 
place  call  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Qirist  our 
Lord,  both  theirs  and  ours,"  we  cannot  con- 
sistently lay  it  aside  on  the  claims  of  greater 
Spirituality^  or  clearer  views  of  Christian  doc- 
trine. We  should  remember  the  extraordi- 
nary gifts  which  were  then  bestowed  upon  the 
Church ;;  and  that  the  Apostle,  in  the  Epistle 
Before  us,  says  :  "  I  thank  my  God  always  on- 
your  behalf,  for  the  grace  of  God  which  i» 
given;  you  by  Jesus  Christ ;  that  in  every  thing 
ye  are  enriched  by  him,  in  all  utterance  and 
in  all  knowledge."  1  Cor.  i.  4,  5.  And  at  a 
BDXtch   earlier  period  it  is  declared^  "ThcR 


bates'  letter.  13. 

had  the  Churches  rest  throughout  all  Judea 
and  Galilee,  and  Samaria,  and  were  edified ; 
and  walking  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  in 
the  comfort  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  were  multi- 
plied."   Acts,  ix.  31. 

Thus  we  find  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the 
Church  of  Corinth,  in  the  year  59:  some  abuses 
which  had  found  admission,  corrected — the 
most  important  practical  considerations  in  re- 
gard to  it,  enforced,  with  this  notice  from  an 
inspired  apostle — "  the  rest  will  I  set  in  order 
when  I  come." 

There  is  no  record  in  Scripture  that  it  was 
abandoned  in  the  Church  ;  but  on  the  contrary, 
established  in  this  decisive  manner,  the  prac- 
tice descended  to  succeeding  ages,  where  eccle- 
siastical history  finds  it,  however  it  may,  in 
the  apostacy,  have  been  abused  or  vitiated. 

The  practical  effects  of  this  ordinance  are 
in  no  small  degree  illustrated  by  the  Apostle. 

It  was  to  bring  the  Lord  Jesus  and  his  suf- 
ferings and  death  for  us,  into  remembrance,  as 
that  on  which  our  Spiritual  life  and  all  hea- 
venly consolations  depend  ;  and  to  show  forth 
the  Lord's  death,  as  a  powerful  appeal  to  our 
hearts,  for  that  gratitude,  and  love,  and  filial 
obedience  which  are  ever  due  from  us  to  him 
who  laid  down  his  life  for  us.  And  also  to 
lead  to  a  close  and  humbling  examination  of 
ourselves,  that  we  may  not  bring  on  ourselves 
the  awful  condemnation  of  being  guilty  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  the  Lod.     Thus  we  may 


74  bates'  letter. 

perceive  an  evident  design  to  comfort,  sustain, 
and  animate  the  humble  believer,  with  a  re- 
newed recurrence  to  those  blessings  which  we 
receive  through  Jesus  Christ — and,  on  the 
other  hand,  to  serve  as  a  solemn  warning, 
against  those  things  which  would  prevent  our 
coming  to  the  Lord's  table. 

Such  has  been,  and  is,  the  Divine  economy 
in  all  the  provisions,  for  the  edification  and 
improvement  of  the  Church  and  its  individual 
members,  that  every  neglect  of  provisions 
which  have  been  given  to  the  Church  by  its 
Holy  Head,  is  attended  with  an  inevitable 
loss.  But  the  wilful  neglect  of  those  things 
designed  for  our  good,  cannot  be  without  direct 
condemnation.  This  result  is  necessarily  con- 
nected with  the  government  of  Christ  in  the 
Church.  We  cannot  turn  from  a  question  of 
this  nature  with  indifference;  nor  when  we 
have  discovered  the  will  of  God,  as  recorded 
in  the  Scriptures,  either  indifferently  put  it 
from  us,  or  balance  between  the  authority  by 
which  it  is  enjoined,  and  that  by  which  it  is 
forbidden. 

One  reason,  on  which  we  have  defended 
our  non-observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
ought  not  to  be  entirely  overlooked.  It  is 
that  very  mystical  view  which  we  have  taken 
of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  in  which  we 
have  supposed  that  we  were  to  eat  the  Spiri- 
tual Body  and  drink  the  Spiritual  Blood o^ 
Christ.     But  however  some  of  us  may  have 


75 

held  that  mystical  doctrine  of  the  body  of 
Christ,  it  is  not  difficult  now  to  perceive,  with 
what  facility  it  has  been  carried  out,  into  what 
we  have  denominated  Hicksism.  If  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  be  taken  as  something 
really  in  ourselves,  the  door  is  completely 
thrown  open  for  the  denial  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  believing  we 
may  have  life  through  his  name.  To  divert 
our  attention  from  him  who  actually  died 
upon  the  cross,  a  sacrifice  for  our  sins;  who 
was  raised  from  the  dead,  and  is  on  the 
right  hand  of  God,  our  ever  living  and  glorified 
High  Priest  and  Advocate  with  the  Father; 
and  to  consider  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
merely  an  inward  principle,  is  a  most  dan- 
gerous departure  from  Scripture  doctrine. 
And  how  far  the  disuse  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
may  have  contributed  to  this  departure,  is 
worthy  of  serious  consideration.  If  we  look 
no  further  back  than  the  beginning  of  the  pre- 
sent century,  we  shall  find  the  Society  in  Ire- 
land almost  broken  up  by  a  modification  of 
this  very  doctrine.  Scarcely  had  these  diffi- 
culties subsided,  when  another  rupture  took 
place  in  New  England,  evidently  originating 
in  the  same  causes.  This  was  immediately 
succeeded,  on  a  more  extended  scale,  by  that 
which  has  been  called  the  Separation  in 
America,  in  which  more  than  thirty  thousand 
persons  were  disunited  from  the  present  body, 
holding   these  very  views  of  the  body  and 


76  bates'  letter. 

blood  of  Christ,  and  claiming  to  hold  the  ori- 
ginal doctrines  of  the  Society.  And  now  the 
same  thing  lies  at  the  root  of  our  present 
difficulties. 

We  must  of  necessity  take  the  whole  broad 
ground  of  Christian  doctrine,  both  as  to  Faith 
and  Practice.  We  must  come  directly  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  without  admitting  an  appeal 
to  any  other  authority  whatever.  It  is,  how- 
ever, a  lamentable  fact,  that  while  the  So- 
ciety has  recently  made  some  important  decla- 
rations of  the  paramount  authority  of  Holy 
Scripture,  the  practical  course  pursued  is,  to 
rest  on  the  authority  of  our  own  writings. 
This,  as  has  been  often  repeated,  must  lead  to 
a  further  examination  of  that  authority. 

In  the  mean  time,  I  wish  my  dear  friends 
impartially  to  weigh  the  subject,  as  in  the 
sight  of  God.  If  we  have  been  mistaken,  that 
mistake  is  against  ourselves.  If  we  persevere 
in  error,  when  the  investigation  is  fairly  open- 
ed before  us,  we  incur  a  condemnation  of  a 
fearful  character. 

On  the  subject  immediately  before  us,  I 
have  acted  on  purely  conscientious  ground; 
and  with  a  desire  to  obey,  from  the  heart,  that 
form  of  doctrine  which  is  delivered  in  the 
Scriptures. 

I  love  the  Society,  and  would  willingly  spend 
and  be  spent,  in  the  promotion  of  its  best  in- 
terests. And  this  can  only  be  effected  by  the 
maintenance  of  sound  Christian  doctrine,  both 


bates'  letter.  77 

as  to  Faith  and  Practice,  And  I  freely  con- 
fess, that  I  believe  a  reformation  in  these  re- 
spects is  niuch  wanted  among  us. 

We  have  seen,  in  the  late  controversy  in 
America,  and  in  subsequent  investigations, 
that  there  is  much  in  the  writings  of  our  ac- 
credited authors,  which  cannot  bear  the  test 
of  Scripture  authority ;  even  in  regard  to  doc- 
trines of  fundamental  importance.  I  have, 
in  the  recent  numbers  of  the  Repository  treat- 
ed this  subject  with  some  freedom.  I  am  con- 
firmed in  the  belief  that  our  own  writings 
cannot  be  taken  as  the  standard  of  doctrines, 
not  only  for  the  plain  reason  of  the  paramount 
authority  of  Holy  Scripture,  but  because  of 
special  reasons  to  be  deduced  from  those 
writings  themselves.  Should  we  be  pressed 
for  these  reasons,  they  will  be  given.  In  the 
meantime,  I  entreat,  my  dear, friends  to  "let 
brotherly  love  continue."  "  Prove  all  things; 
hold  fast  that  which  is  good." 
I  am, 

With  love,  your  friend, 

Elisha  Bates. 

9th  Month,  1836. 


e« 


AFPEi^DIX, 


Correspondence  between  Elisha  Bates  and 
others,  on  the  subject  of  his  having  been 
baptized. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 

A  PEW  days  before  Elisha  Bates  embarked 
for  America,  he  received,  through  the  hands 
of  Josiah  Forster,  clerk  of  the  Morning  meet- 
ing of  Ministers  and  Elders,  an  official  copy 
of  a  minute  of  that  Meeting,  in  reference  to 
his  having  been  baptized.  This  Minute,  to- 
gether with  some  correspondence  relating  to 
that  act,  and  to  the  Minute  itself,  forms  the 
subject  of  the  present  publication. 

After  consulting  with  the  few  friends,  to 
whom  he  then  had  access,  it  was  his  and  their 
united  judgment,  that  this  document  as  well 
as  the  whole  correspondence  above  referred 
to,  ought  to  be  laid  before  the  public,  unless 
something  should  be  done,  on  the  part  of  those 
who  are,  either  individually  or  collectively, 
implicated  in  it,  which  might  render  such  a 
step  unnecessary.     As,  however,  it  was  out  of 


80  bates'  lettkr. 

the  question  for  Elisha  Bates  to  remain  upon 
the  spot  to  receive  a  reply  to  the  last  letter 
in  the  series,  copies  were  left  with  me  to  use 
as  circumstances  might  dictate. 

Its  immediate  publication  was  not  defer- 
red from  any  strong  expectation  that  such 
steps  would  be  taken,  by  those  who  have 
been  instrumental  in  this  proceeding,  as  would 
preclude  the  necessity  of  adopting  that  course; 
yet  it  was,  nevertheless,  deemed  advisable  to 
wait  for  a  short  period,  in  order  to  afford  them 
time  for  re-consideration.  That  time  has  now 
been  afforded,  and  no  intimation  has  been 
given  of  their  intention  to  offer  any  explana- 
tion of  an  act  which  is  to  say  the  least  of  it 
very  remarkable  in  more  than  one  respect. 
Under  these  circumstances,  therefore,  and 
after  taking  the  opinion  of  some  of  those 
Friends  who  are  acquainted  with  the  case,  I 
consider  it  to  be  my  duty  to  carry  into  effect 
the  charge  left  in  my  hands. 

Whilst  expressing  no  opinion  of  my  own, 
upon  the  act  itself,  which  has  occasioned  this 
correspondence,  I  may  perhaps  be  permitted 
to  say,  that  I  fully  accord  with  my  valued 
friend  Elisha  Bates,  in  the  judgment  that  it 
should  be  published.  For,  when  those  who 
are  filling  the  most  prominent  stations  in  the 
Society,  are  thus  presuming,  in  the  exercise 
of  one  of  its  subordinate  functions,  to  issue  un- 
qualified declarations  upon  a  question  whereon 
we  differ,  not  only  from  the  understanding  and 


bates'  letter.  81 

belief  of  the  Apostles  themselves,  but  also  of 
the  Primitive  Christians  and  all  other  sects, 
from  the  day  of  Pentecost  down  to  the  pre- 
sent day — when,  acting  upon  these  declara- 
tions, they  are  doing  all  in  their  power,  and 
using  all  their  influence  to  bring  down  upon 
an  individual  the  censures  of  the  church,  and 
that,  too,  in  a  case  wherein  it  is  not  pretended 
that  any  law  exists — it  is  time  that  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Society  generally,  should  be  ap- 
prised of  what  is  going  on — it  is  time  that  their 
attention  should  be  seriously  called  to  the  sub- 
ject. Though,  at  first  sight,  it  may  appear 
to  be  an  affair  only  of  individual  interest,  yet 
truly,  it  is  one  o^ general  interest,  when  view- 
in  all  its  bearings.  It  involves  a  principle — a 
principle  of  which  the  pernicious  operation  has 
been  abundantly  exemplified  in  the  history  of 
the  Church  of  Rome — a  principle,  into  the 
abuse  of  which,  the  character  of  recent  pro- 
ceedings amongst  us,  in  this  neighborhood, 
m.ost  incontestibly  shows,  that  we,  as  a  Society, 
are  but  too  prone  to  slide. 

Robert  Beivson. 

Liverpool,  Uth  Mo.  '2d,  1836. 


8S  bates'  letter. 

CORRESPONDENCE. 

Londoji,  IQth  Month  Ath,  1836. 

Dear  Friend  Elisha  Bates, 

Our  friend  Samuel  Gurney  has  communi- 
cated to  us  the  contents  of  thy  letter  to  him 
of  the  the  22nd  of  last  month  and  we  feel  it 
to  be  our  place,  in  brotherly  love,  before  thou 
leaves  this  country  to  unite  with  him  in  offer- 
ing a  few  remarks  on  thy  course  of  proceeding. 

We  heard  with  much  much  concern  after 
thou  left  London,  that  thou  hadst  thought  it 
right  to  undergo  the  rite  of  water  baptism, 
and  cannot  but  deeply  lament  so  painful  a 
symptom  of  alienation  from  those  spiritual 
views  of  the  gospel  dispensation  which  our 
Society  has  ever  thought  it  right  to  uphold. 

We  should  be  very  sorry  to  condemn  the 
conscientious  feelings  of  a  brother — to  our 
own  Master  we  must  each  stand  or  fall ;  but  we 
would  affectionately  observe  to  thee,  that 
having  been  acknowledged  as  a  minister 
amongst  Friends,  and  having  written  in  sup- 
port of  their  well  known  doctrines  and  testi- 
monies, with  the  concurrence  of  thy  brethren 
in  religious  profession  at  home,  it  seems  to  us 
to  have  been  peculiarly  incumbent  on  thee 
to  be  open  and  candid  with  the  Friends  of  thy 
own  Monthly  Meeting,  before  thus  acting  in 


bates'  letter.  83 

violation  of  opinions  which  they  must,  we  sup- 
pose, have  considered  thee  lo  entertain. 

We  are  aware  of  what  thou  hast  written, 
in  the  last  number  of  thy  Repository,  on  thy 
book  "  On  the  Doctrines  of  Friends,"  This 
does  not,  however,  meet  the  question  as  re- 
gards thyself,  and  thy  Monthly  Meeting,  in  the 
way  in  which  we  think  the  subject  demanded. 

And  is  there  not  an  obvious  inconsistency  in 
thy  acting  as  a  minister  in  our  Society  whilst 
thy  sentiments  are  at  variance  with  those  of 
the  body  to  which  thou  belongs? 

And  we  would  further  submit  to  thee,  whe- 
ther it  was  not  an  infraction  on  the  views  of  our 
Society,  in  submitting  to  water  baptism,  to 
have  recourse  to  ministers  of  other  denomina- 
tions for  its  performance? 

Our  own  attachment  continues  to  the  uni- 
formly professed  sentiments  of  the  Society  of 
Friends,  on  the  nature  of  the  Baptism  of  Christ 
our  Lord;  and  much  do  we  desire  that  the 
importance  of  the  spiritual  character  of  the 
Gospel  of  our  holy  Redeemer,  as  set  forth  in 
the  Scriptures  of  truth,  may  be  upheld  amongst 
us,  intimately  connected  as  we  consider  it  to 
be  with  the  disuse  of  water  baptism,  which  is 
in  our  apprehension  a  practice  to  which  the 
language  of  our  Yearly  Meeting's  epistle  of 
1835  applies — "  that  no  shadows,  in  the  wor- 
ship of  God,  were  instituted  by  our  Lord,  or 
have  any  place  in  the  Christian  dispensation." 

It  is  no  more  than  candid  to  inform  thee, 


^  bates'  letter. 

that  whilst  thus  communicating  to  thee  our 
views,  it  seems  proper  also  to  write  to  thy 
friends  at  home  on  the  subject. 

Accept  the  assurance  of  our  affection  and 
interest,  and  believe  us  to  remain, 
Thy  sincere  friends, 

(Signed)  Josiah  Forstek. 

Samuel  Gurney. 
George  Stagey. 


Kendal,  Wlh  month  8ih,  1836. 

My  dear  Friends, 

Josiah  Forster,  Samuel    Gurney,  George 
Stagey, — 

Your  letter  of  the  4th  instant  came  to  hand 
this  morning,  and  with  all  the  readiness  which 
the  nature  of  the  case  demands,  I  shall  give 
you  some  of  my  thoughts  in  relation  to  it. 

And  in  the  first  place  I  will  take  the  liberty 
of  asking  you  very  seriously,  In  what  light  do 
you  view  the  documents,  I  mean  the  three 
paragraphs,  embodied  in  your  last  general 
epistle?  Are  we  to  take  those  declarations 
contained  in  it,  in  regard  to  the  autho- 
rity of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  to  mean  what 
they  say?  If  it  was  so  intended,  how 
can  you  appeal,  not  to  the  Scriptures,  but  "  to 
those  spiritual  views  of  the  gospel  dispensation 


bates'  letter,  S5 

which  our  Society  has  ever  thought  it  right  to 
uphold,"  or  to  your  epistle  of  1835  on  a  ques- 
tion of  doctrine  ?  And  I  would  respectfully 
suggest  for  your  consideration,  whether  I  shall 
act  consistently  with  that  document,  if,  when 
I  am  called  to  account  on  a  point  of  faith  or 
practice,  I  insist  on  being  tried  hy  the  Scrip- 
tures, without  allowing  an  appeal  from  them 
to  any  other  authority  whatsoever  ?  I  should 
be  obliged  if  you  would  give  me  simple  and 
direct  answers  to  to  these  questions. 

I  should  like  also  to  know,  where,  in  the 
New  Testament,  I  can  find  that  water  bap- 
tism, as  it  was  practised  in  the  early  Christian 
church,  was  forbidden  or  declared  to  be  tin- 
lawful ;  nay,  further,  I  would  take  it  kind,  if 
you  would  show  me,  where  the  receiving,  or 
even  administering  of  it  is  declared  to  dis- 
qualify a  minister  of  the  gospel  for  that 
Work. 

As  to  my  having  abandoned  opinions  that 
I  have  once  advocated,  I  can  assure  you,  that 
I  am  not  insensible  of  the  influence  of  the 
pride  of  opinion  ;  and  that  I  have  been  en- 
abled to  cast  off  that  influence  in  any  degree, 
and  to  be  willing  to  be  accounted  a  fool  for 
Christ's  sake,  I  do  not  attribute  to  any  strength 
of  my  own. 

The  idea  of  laying  before  my  own  Monthly 
Meeting  my  impressions  of  duty  in  regard  to 
being  baptized,  1  confess  is  one  that  I  had 
never  thought  of.     And  as  there  is  nothing, 


86 

either  in  the  discipline,  or  in  the  Bible  to 
have  suggested  it,  you  will  excuse  me  for  not 
having  thought  of  it  before  I  met  with  it  in 
your  letter.  It  might  have  been  a  suitable 
way  of  bringing  my  friends  to  think  seriously 
of  the  subject.  What  more  they  could  have 
done,  according  to  discipline,  I  am  not  yet 
able  to  discover ;  but  this  I  hope  they  ivill  do, 
from  the  manner  in  which  it  will  be  laid  be- 
fore them. 

The  questions  you  suggest,  I  shall  be  most 
ready  to  answer,  should  you  think  proper  to 
reply  simply  and  unequivocally  to  those  which 
I  have  olFered  to  your  consideration.  It  is 
perfectly  useless  to  discuss  subjects  without 
having  first  settled  the  premises. 

Your  attachment  to  "  the  uniformly  pro- 
fessed sentiments  of  the  Society  of  Friends  on 
the  nature  of  the  baptism  of  Christ  our  Lord," 
I  can  readily  conceive  ;  and  I  can  assure  you 
that  /  have  felt  that  attachment  myself  as 
strongly  as  any  of  you  can  have  felt  it.  And 
in  saying  this,  I  wdsh  it  also  distinctly  under- 
stood, that  I  do  as  earnestly  "  desire'^  as  you, 
"  that  the  importance  of  the  spiritual  charac- 
ter of  the  gospel  of  our  holy  Redeemer,  as  set 
forth  in  the  Scriptures  of  truth,  may  be  up- 
held amongst  us."  But  I  would  ask  you  to 
reflect  on  the  obvious  bearing  of  the  clause 
which  you  have  connected  with  the  words 
just  quoted.  "  Intimately  connected,"  as  you 
say  you  consider  it  to  be,  *'  with  the  disuse  of 


bates'  letter.  87 

water  baptism."  These  expressions  undoubt- 
edly throw  upon  you  the  proof  o(  the  disuse 
of  water  baptism  in  the  Christian  church. 
But  this  is  not  all :  for  it  involves  you  in  a 
most  serious  imputation  on  the  Christian 
church  during  the  whole  period  (whatever 
that  period  ma}''  have  been)  in  which  water 
baptism  was  certainly  used.  I  trust  you  will 
not,  for  a  moment,  hesitate  in  admitting,  that 
if  the  sentiments  of  the  Society  (however  uni- 
formly they  may  have  been  professed)  in  re- 
ference to  any  point  o{ faith  or  practice,  have 
been  in  error,  the  Society  is  bound  to  relin- 
quish that  error.  I  place  it  hypothetically ; 
and  this  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  open  the 
door  for  a  strictly  scriptural  discussion,  ac- 
cording to  the  pledge  that  was  given  by  your 
last  Yearly  Meeting.  I  am  far  from  inviting 
a  controversial  correspondence,  but  if  you 
wish  it,  I  shall  meet  it  with  all  readiness. 

It  may  possibly  be  some  satisfaction  to  you 
to  know  that,  immediately  after  I  was  bap- 
tized, I  wrote  to  the  clerk  of  Short  Creek 
Monthly  Meeting,  authorizing  and  request- 
ing  him  to  inform  the  Monthly  Meeting, yro7?i 
me,  of  what  had  taken  place.  And  it  is  my 
intention,  as  soon  as  possible,  to  return  home, 
and  place  myself  at  the  disposal  oi  my  friends, 
so  far  as  respects  my  rights  of  membership. 
These  rights  I  still  value;  and  if  the  relation 
in  which  I  stand,  as  to  the  Society,  is  to  be 
changed  at  all,  I  shall  leave  it  to  the  Society 


88  bates'  letter. 

itself  to  change  it.  Still  loving  the  Society 
and  the  members  of  which  it  is  composed,  and 
many  of  them  especially,  yourselves  included 
in  the  number, 

I  remain  your  sincere  friend, 

Elisha  Bates. 

P.  S.  I  expect  to  embark  for  America  in 
the  packet  of  the  16th;  but  the  facilities  of 
communication  between  the  two  countries,  I 
trust,  will  afford  me  the  opportunity  of  readily 
receiving  and  replying  to  any  communica- 
tions, either  public  or  private,  which  may 
claim  my  attention. 

A  letter  of  reasons  for  the  step  I  have  taken 
is  in  the  press,  and  will  be  out  in  a  few  days: 
I  hope  you  will  give  it  a  calm  consideration. 


Tottenham^  lOth  Mo,  MM,  1836. 
My  dear  Friend, 

As  clerk  to  the  Morning  Meeting,  I  forward 
the  accompanying  minute  agreeably  to  its  di- 
rections. 1  have  sent  a  copy  to  the  care  of 
Isaac  Parker  and  Ben.  W.  Ladd  as  corres- 
pondents for  the  meeting  of  ministers  and 
elders  of  Short  Creek  Monthly  Meeting,  in 
accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  minute.  In 
letters  to  my  old  correspondents  Jonathan 
Evans  and  Sam.uel  Parsons,  I  have  informed 
them  of  the  concern  felt  by  Friends  of  Eng- 
land at  the  course  which  thou  hast  thought  it 
right  to  pursue. 


bates'  letter.  89 

On  my  return  from  London  yesterday 
evening,  I  met  thy  letter  of  the  8th  instant. 
In  it  thou  observes,  "  I  am  far  from  inviting  a 
controversial  correspondence  ;  but  if  you  wish 
it,  I  shall  meet  it  with  all  readiness."  I  do 
not  wish  it ;  and  I  should  think  that  S.  G.  and 
G.  S.  would  not  wish  it,  (I  intend  of  course 
showing  thy  letter  to  them)  I,  therefore,  re- 
frain from  replying  to  some  inquiries  in  the 
early  part  of  thy  letter :  they  would  in  my 
view  almost  necessarily  lead  to  controversy. 
Our  design  was,  in  brotherly  kindness  and 
openness,  to  cast  before  thee  our  thoughts  and 
feelings :  having  done  so,  we  there  leave  the 
subject.  I  incline,  however,  to  add  that  recent 
circumstances  have  led  me  to,  I  hope,  a  calm 
and  patient  examination  of  Holy  Scripture  on 
the  subject  of  water  baptism.  I  thought  I 
was  satisfied  before,  but  the  result  has  been 
my  confirmation  of  the  soundness  of  the  views 
which  our  Society  has  ever  held  on  this  point. 
At  thy  request,  it  is  my  intention  to  give  a 
calm  consideration  to  thy  pamphlet  when  it 
comes  into  my  hands. 

I  used  to  like  a  little  argument  and  dispu- 
tation on  religious  topics :  I  have  still  a  plea- 
sure in  conversing  with  my  friends  for  my 
own  instruction,  on  those  subjects  v*'hich  are 
indeed  to  us  all  of  the  highest  moment ;  but 
my  love  for  controversy  is  very  much  gone,  I 
am  unfit  for  it.  It  is  not  unfrequently  my 
wish  for  those  I  love  (and  allow  me  my  dear 
H  2 


90  bates'  letter. 

friend  to  include  thee  among  them)  as  well  as 
for  myself,  that  we  may  indeed  adopt  the  lan- 
guage, "  So  teach  me  to  number  my  days, 
that  I  may  apply  my  heart  unto  wisdom."  In 
this  application  of  heart,  in  humble  reliance 
on  a  gracious  Saviour,  may  it  be  our  preva- 
lent desire,  now,  and  during  the  remainder  of 
our  pilgrimage,  to  be  led  to  the  green  pas- 
tures, and  still  waters  of  life,  where  Christ  the 
good  Shepherd  feeds  and  gathers  his  flock. 
I  remain 
Thy  sincere  and  aflectionate  friend, 

JOSIAH  FORSTER. 

Broad  street,  London^  IQth  Mo.  I'ith. 

I  have  seen  Samuel  Gurney,  and  read  him 
thy  letter  of  the  8th,  and  the  above ;  he  says 
he  could  have  signed  this.  He  desires  his  af- 
fectionate love  to  thee.     Again  farewell. 

J.F. 


Minute  of  the  Morning  Meeting  of  Mi- 
nisters AND  Elders, 
Enclosed  in  the  foregoing  letter  from  Josiah 
Forster,  dated  lOth  Month  llM,  1836. 

At  the  Morning  Meeting  of  Ministers  and 
Elders,  held  in  London,  the  10th  of  10th  Mo., 
1836,— 

Information  has  now  been  received  that 
Elisha  Bates,  an  acknowledged  minister  of 
the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  who  came  over  to 


bates'  letter.  91 

this  country  in  the  spring  to  attend  to  some 
business,  has,  since  this  meeting  was  last  held, 
during  a  short  residence  in  the  neighborhood 
of  this  city,  submitted  to  the  ceremony  of  water 
baptism,  which  was  performed  by  a  minister 
of  a  dissenting  congregation. 

This  meeting  thinks  it  right  in  much  Chris- 
tian love  for  Elisha  Bates,  to  record  its  deep 
concern  on  the  occasion,  and  its  continued 
sense  that  the  practice  thus  adverted  to, 
(against  which  our  Society  has  uniformly  be- 
lieved itself  called  upon  to  bear  a  public  testi- 
mony, as  no  part  of  the  Christian  dispensation) 
was  not  instituted  by  our  Lord  and  Saviour, 
svhom  we  have  always  acknowledged  as  the 
4only  and  supreme  Head  of  his  Church. 

The  Clerk  is  directed  to  forward  a  copy  of 

the  foregoing  Minute  to  Elisha  Bates  ;  and  to 

the  meeting  of  Ministers  and  Elders  of  the 

Monthly  Meeting  of  which  he  is  a  member. 

(Copy.) 

Signed,  William  Manley. 


Lodge  Lane,  10th  Month  Hth,  1836. 

My  dear  Friend,  Josiah  Forster, 

The  document  of  the  Morning  Meeting, 
with  thy  letter  enclosed  in  it,  was  handed  to 
melast  evening  by  our  mutual  friend,  James 
Foster.     The  free  remarks  which  I  shall  make 


92  bates'  letter. 

on  the  correspondence  and  the  Minute,  thou 
wilt  please  to  lay  before  thy  colleagues,  Samuel 
Gurney  and  George  Stacey,  and  also  the 
Morning  Meeting. 

When  I  received  Samuel  Gurney 's  letter, 
and  replied  to  it  with  all  the  frankness  and 
freedom  that  so  very  friendly  a  letter  demand- 
ed, I  did  not  suppose,  nor  do  I  now,  that  he  in- 
tended to  found  upon  those  letters  any  com- 
bined or  official  proceedings.  Nor  have  I  at 
any  time  wished  the  subject  to  which  they 
related  to  be  regarded  as  a  secret.  Of  this, 
no  stronger  proof  need  be  given  than  the  fact 
that  I  immediately  communicated  to  Clerk  of 
Short  Creek  Monthly  Meeting  information  of 
the  step  I  had  taken — and  that,  as  soon  as  cir- 
cumstances w^ould  admit,  I  published  here  a 
Letter  of  Reasons  for  my  change  of  opinion. 
In  giving  information  to  my  friends  at  home  I 
have  wished  it  understood  that  I  did  it  on  the 
ground  of  respect  and  love  for  them,  and  not 
from  any  idea  of  its  furnishing  occasion  for  dis- 
ciplinary proceedings.  For  where  there  is  no 
law  there  is  no  transgression. 

When  your  joint  letter  w^as  received  I  con- 
fess I  was  somewhat  surprised  at  the  connexion 
which  it  professed  to  have  with  the  two  let- 
ters to  which  I  have  alluded.  And  now  the 
document  seems  to  be  but  the  carrying  out  of 
the  intimation  which  was  given  in  the  joint 
letter.     And  in  addition  to  this  thy  last  informs 


bates'  letter.  93 

me  that  thou  hast  written  to  Jonathan  Evans 
and  Samuel  Parsons  on  the  subject. 

After  such  a  course  of  practice,  you  must 
expect  that  I  should  call  upon  you,  and  that 
publicly,  to  sustain  the  ground  you  have  taken 
and  the  steps  which  you  have  pursued.  If  you 
can  maintain  the  first  I  shall  not  be  tenacious 
in  regard  to  the  last. 

In  my  reply  to  your  joint  letter  I  gave  you 
to  understand,  that  though  I  did  not  invite  a 
controversial  correspondence  I  should  meet  it 
with  readiness.  For  I  certainly  did  not  in- 
cline to  press  you  with  discussion  if  you  did  not 
feel  disposed  to  enter  into  it.  If  you  did  not 
wish  to  pursue  the  subject  any  further,  I  did 
not  wish  to  carry  you  further.  But  I  certain- 
ly had  a  right  to  expect  that  having  gone  as 
far  as  you  had,  you  should  have  candidly  an- 
swered the  few  plain  questions  which  I  pro- 
posed to  you.  But  having  pursued  the  sub- 
ject as  you  have  done,  it  seems  to  me 
most  unreasonable  to  decline  to  give  the 
simplest  answer  which  the  nature  of  the  case 
imperiously  demanded,  under  the  plea  that  the 
"love  for  controversy  is  very  much  gone." 
And  I  candidly  think  it  is  out  of  time  and  out 
of  place,  after  having  put  such  powerful  ma- 
chinery into  operation,  officially  and  unofficial- 
ly, to  work  upon  an  individual,  to  talk 
to  him  in  the  v>^ay  in  which  thou  con- 
cludes thy  last  letter  to  me.  No,  my  dear 
friend,  as  I  must  necessarily  defend  myself 
acrainst  the  information  which  you  have  sent 


94  bates'  letter. 

abroad  in  the  Society,  officially  and  unofficial- 
ly, I  must  so  far  interfere  with  your  quiet  as 
to  ask  you  again,  "  Where  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, I  can  find  that  water  baptism,  as  it  was 
practised  in  the  early  Christian  Church  was 
forbidden  or  declared  to  be  unlawful?'^  I 
call  upon  you  for  a  plain,  direct  and  unequivo- 
cal answer.  As  you  have  gratuitously  enter- 
ed into  this  business,  without  any  necessity  laid 
upon  you — and  that  too  to  make  a  brother  an 
offender, — and  in  a  case  in  which  there  is  no 
rule  of  discipline  at  all,  you  certainly  are  bound 
to  show  that  the  step  I  have  taken  is  unlaw- 
ful^  or  honestly  to  acknowledge  that  you  can- 
not. 

While  I  shall  insist  that  you  shall  meet  me 
at  this  point,  and  prove,  if  you  can,  the  un- 
lawfulness of  the  practice  of  water  baptism, 
I  have  an  undoubted  right  to  point  out  some  of 
the  improprieties  into  which  you  have  gone. 

You  say  in  your  letter  of  the  4th  instant, 
"  And  much  do  we  desire  that  the  importance 
of  the  spiritual  character  of  the  Gospel  of  our 
holy  Redeemer,  as  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures  of 
truth,  may  be  upheld  amongst  us,  intimately 
connected  as  we  consider  it  to  be  with  the  dis- 
use of  water  baptism."  In  making  such  a  de- 
claration, I  do  not  see  how  you  can  avoid  the 
inference  that  you  do  not  believe  the  Apostles 
and  early  Christians,  who  both  administered 
and  received  it,  did  uphold  the  spiritual  cha- 
racter of  the  Gospel  of  our  holy  Redeemer. 


bates'  letter.  95 

For  as  water  baptism  was  undeniably  %ised  in 
the  days  of  the  Apostles,  have  you  not  either 
charged  them  with  not  upholding  the  spiritual 
character  of  the  Gospel  of  our  holy  Redeemer, 
or  really  advocated  another  Gospel  ?  I  see 
no  medium  for  you  between  these  two  points. 
The  Minute  of  the  Morning  Meeting, 
(which,  as  thou  art  the  Clerk  of  that  Meeting, 
I  presume  was  written  by  thyself.)  declares — 

"This  meeting  thinks  it  right,  in  much  Chris- 
tian love  for  Elisha  Bates,  to  record  its  deep 
concern  on  the  occasion,  and  its  continued 
sense  that  the  practice  thus  adverted  to, 
(against  which  our  religious  Society  has  uni- 
formly believed  itself  called  upon  to  bear  pub- 
lic testimony  as  no  part  of  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation) was  not  instituted  by  our  Lord  and 
Saviour,*'  &c. 

Now,  on  the  ground  taken  by  thyself  and 
some  others  in  the  Yearly  Meeting  in  object- 
ing to  the  proposition  from  Westmoreland,  if 
the  Society  has  clearly  expressed  its  sense  on 
this  subject,  the  expression  of  it  now  was  un- 
called for.  But  if  the  judgment  of  the  body 
is  now  called  forth,  and  a  course  of  proceed- 
ings commenced — novel  as  respects  the  So- 
ciety, and  unheard  of  in  the  Christian  world — 
why  should  the  Morning  Meeting,  composed 
of  the  ministers  and  elders  of  the  Quarterly 
Meeting  of  London  and  Middlesex,  gratuitous- 
ly take  upon  itself  this  highly  responsible  mea- 


96  bates'  letter. 

sure  ]  The  Morning  Meeting,  in  recording 
"  its  deep  concern,"  its  continued  "sense,'^  and 
sweeping  censure  in  regard  to  the  practice  ad- 
verted to,  must  naturally  throw  the  whole 
weight  of  the  influence  of  that  body  on  the 
side  of  prompt  measures  against  such  as  re- 
ceive the  ordinance  of  baptism. 

I  think  the  Meeting  did  not  duly  consider 
how  much  of  the  writings  of  the  Society,  in 
reference  to  the  subject,  proceed  on  the  as- 
sumption that  baptism  has  ceased  in  point  of 
ohligation,  or  notice  the  difference  which 
there  is  between  this  and  a  practice  being  ab- 
solutely wrong  in  itself.  But  not  considering 
this,  or  not  satisfied  with  it — and  least  of  all 
regarding  the  declaration  of  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing, in  referring  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  with- 
out allowing  an  appeal  from  them  to  any  other 
authority  whatsoever — you  now  come  to  the 
determination  that  public  testimony  is  to  be 
borne  against  that  which  most  evidently  was 
practised  in  the  Church  when  she  was  most 
eminently  favored  with  the  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  which  was  again  and  again  declar- 
ed to  have  been  done  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus.  Now,  if  you  really  do  intend  to  make 
it  manifest  to  the  world,  that  Quakerism  and 
Primitive  Christianity  are  totally  at  variance, 
and  that  the  latter  cannot  be  tolerated  in  the 
former,  you  have  only  to  goon  in  the  course  in 
which  you  have  set  out. 

I  entreat  you  to  bear  with  the  freedom  of 


bates'  letter.  97 

these  remarks  ;  you  have  compelled  me  to  it. 
But  I  must  repeat  that  while  you  rest  your 
objections  to  baptism  on  the  testimonies  of 
Friends,  you  not  only  fail  in  rendering  to  the 
Revealed  Will  of  God  that  regard  which  is 
imperiously  demanded;  but  you  show  that  the 
most  important  declarations  ever  made  by  the 
Society,  recognising  the  doctrines  contain- 
ed in  the  Scriptures  as  resting  on  the  authority 
of  God  himself,  and  there  can  be  no  appeal 
from  them  to  any  other  authority  whatever, 
are  to  be  used  merely  at  discretion. 

Thou  knowest,  my  dear  friend,  that  one  of 
the  heaviest  charges  against  the  Church  of 
Home,  is  that  of  her  undertaking  to  decide 
important  questions  of  doctrine  by  church  au- 
thority, and  not  by  the  Scriptures.  The  as- 
sumption involves  the  claim  to  infallibility,  of 
course.  Now  I  ask  if  it  is  desirable  for  the 
Morning  Meeting,  or  any  other  Meeting  in  the 
Society  of  Friends,  at  this  day  to  try  that  often- 
repeated,  but  abortive  experiment  ?  And  yet 
in  what  other  can  we  regard  the  document 
which  you  have  recently  issued  ?  In  one  sin- 
gle sentence,  you  have  undertaken  to  decide 
an  important  point  of  doctrine  by  your  own 
simple  assertion,  without  the  least  shadow  of 
proof  from  Scripture.  To  say  without  proof 
"  that  the  practice  thus  adverted  to,  was  not 
instituted  by  our  Lord  and  Saviour,"  places 
your  decision  solely  on  the  ground  of  church 
authority,  and  we  are  called  upon  to  believe 


98  bates'  letter. 

as  the  church  believes,  under  the  penalty  of , 
her  displeasure.  And  that  penalty  is  not  to 
be  determined  by  any  specific  rules  of  disci- 
pline, but  by  her  own  discretion.  To  you, 
who  happen  just  at  present  to  have  this  power 
in  your  own  hands,  it  may  seem  to  be  both  safe 
and  salutary.  But  as  thou,  and  some  others 
of  you,  do  not  agree  with  all  that  early  Friends 
have  written,  you  cannot  tell  how  soon  some 
more  consistent  advocates  of  Quakerism  may 
dispense  to  you  the  measure  you  are  now  dis- 
pensing to  others.  Of  one  thing  you  may  be 
certain — you  must  go  the  whole  length  of  ad- 
vocating all  that  early  Friends  have  written, 
or  you  will  be  no  longer  safe  than  you  can 
keep  the  reins  of  power  in  your  own  hands. 

But  to  return  to  your  assumption,  that 
baptism  was  not  instituted  by  our  Lord 
and  Saviour,  you  ought  to  remember,  that 
you  are  not  likely  to  know  the  meaning  of 
Christ,  in  the  commission  which  he  gave  in 
his  own  person  to  his  disciples,  any  better 
than  they  did  while  acting  under  it,  endued 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  sent  down  from  heaven. 
On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  they  were  all 
filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  spake  as  the 
Spirit  gave  them  utterance,  after  the  Gospel 
had  been  eflfectually  preached,  the  question 
was  asked,  "  Men  and  brethren  what  shall 
we  do  ?"  The  reply  was,  "  Repent,  and  be 
baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye 


m 

shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Then 
they  that  gladly  received  his  word,  were  bap- 
tized." Here  then  was  an  exemplification  of 
the  meaning  of  the  commission  in  both  its 
parts ;  teaching  and  baptizing  being  perform- 
ed in  the  common  and  obvious  meaning  of  the 
text.  That  the  bajytiziiig  was  strictly  under 
the  commission,  is  proved  by  the  Apostle 
Peter,  who  com^manded  it ;  for  he  explicitly 
stated  it  to  be  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Now  I  ask  thee,  my  friend,  if  an  agent,  having 
received  a  commission  for  transacting  some 
important  business,  should  perform  an  act,  or 
direct  it  to  be  performed  in  the  name  of  him 
whose  commission  he  bore,  would  not  every 
man  of  common  sense  understand  him  to  claim 
the  authority  of  his  employer,  in  that  parti- 
cular act  ?  Surely  the  answer  cannot  be 
doubtful.  But  I  will  go  fartherj  and  inquire, 
if  any  one  were  to  deny  that  such  an  agent 
were  authorized  in  a  case  so  rejwesented, 
would  it  not  virtually  be  an  impeachment 
either  of  his  honesty  or  of  his  understanding  ? 
I  leave  thee  to  answer  the  question,  and  to 
make  the  application.  I  do  think  it  is  to  be 
regretted  that  you  should  have  placed  your- 
selves in  so  unhappy  a  situation. 

I  could  say  much  more,  but  I  must  draw  to 
a  conclusion,  and  with  love  to  thyself  and  the 
others  concerned,  remain 

Thj  friend, 

EL  Bates 


100 

Pressed  with  engagements,  I  have  written 
hastily,  and  have  used  a  *'  manifold  writer" 
for  the  purpose  of  saving  time.  Thou  wilt 
please  to  make  the  necessary  allowances. 

I  cannot  satisfactorily  sutfer  this  letter  to 
pass  out  of  my  hands  without  a  word  or  two 
more  on  your  denial  that  baptism  was  insti- 
tuted by  our  Lord  and  Saviour.  It  places 
the  subject  in  a  point  of  view  which  involves 
the  most  serious  consequences.  It  casts  on  the 
apostles  themselves  the  imputation  of  having 
taken  up  the  practice  without  authority,  and 
consequently  of  being  altogether  in  error  ! ! 
Another  remark  :  there  being  no  discipline 
prohibiting  baptism,  I  question  your  right  to 
meddle  with  it  in  any  official  character  what- 
ever. And  considering  the  highly  objection- 
able ground  which  the  Morning  Meeting  has 
taken,  I  do  think  that  meeting  is  bound  to  re- 
trace its  steps ;  and  I  would  suggest  that  it 
should  be  immediately  convened  for  the  pur- 
pose, 

You  must  see  that  your  document  and  the 
letters  you  have  written  to  Friends  in  Ame- 
rica have  taken  the  business  entirely  out  of  a 
private  character.  The  letters  which  have 
passed  between  us  and  the  document  must, 
therefore,  be  published. 

In  making  any  communication  by  letter  to 
me,  you  will  please  to  enclose  it  to  Robert 
Benson,  open  to  his  inspection. 
With  love,  thy  friend, 

E,  Batjss, 


Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Lit 


1    1012  01029   1740 


